Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[sojourner]

The understanding of nature by medieval Christianity is outdated, as is their system of morality. Last time I checked, we don't burn heretics at the stake or rip out the entrails of pagans anymore. This is 2014.

Tlaloc is, essentially correct here. He disagrees with its current veracity, but he is correct that this is the root of the belief.

My post to him (if you read it) was to posit that the point is poorly academic, since most modern Christians don't know a thing about teleology.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Tlaloc is, essentially correct here. He disagrees with its current veracity, but he is correct that this is the root of the belief.

My post to him (if you read it) was to posit that the point is poorly academic, since most modern Christians don't know a thing about teleology.

Okay. I see now. He certainly was correct in that sense then.

 

[sojourner]

Okay. I see now. He certainly was correct in that sense then.

Sometimes (as you know) communication via forum is too easy to misinterpret. I think we're talking the same language here.

 

[Glaurung]

However, you just used "natural law" in the first post, and THEN in a later post said you meant the specific. This is what you said - note no "Aristotelian framework," !just the words - natural law!

Because the idea that you can derive objective moral principles by the observation of teleology has always been what is meant by "natural law" There's nothing to be specific about, because that is what natural law means!

I could have said, homosexuality is wrong by the rules of Christian teleology. But again, this teleology has always been called, "natural law" because teleology is what is actually meant by nature in this case.

So perhaps you should stop the bull and get back to the topic?

Why? I was never part of the discussion. I had only gotten involved to address one point that I found egregious, (post 502) which I did only to get dragged into running around in circles with you over what is actually a pretty mainstream concept that I shouldn't need to explain to anyone willing to do the slightest research. Your arrogant response to post 521 was ignorant.

 

[viole]

And I'm saying that this is an equivocation. Natural law is a formal system of deductive moral reasoning based of a metaphysical framework of Aristotle.

It's not about what is found in nature, but the supposed teleology within it. This is not that hard to understand.. yet.



Not laws of nature not in the sense of what happens in nature or how physical reality works, but the objective moral principles by the observation of the final cause in the Aristotelian framework.

And it's not me postulating anything. It's everyone's refusal to understand what I'm actually talking about then assuming that my discussion of the system must mean my advocating.

Ok. I see. We should try to put ourselves in Christians philosophical shoes so that we see their logic behind "against natural law".

Fine. But I don't see how that could be useful in a debate. You can make up a lot of premises to justify basically anything. For instance, I could say that sons are like their fathers justifying, thereby, something like the the caste system or genocide. For me, it does not make a lot of difference, since I do not relly care whether homosexuality is attacked by Christians or supporters of Aristoteles.

Actually, this is not true. i understand more a supporter of Aristoteles than a Christian, who is supposed to give support to all people that have a so-called disadvantage because of the brutal nature we inherited from sin. It is mind boggling that they attribute value to the laws of nature when, at the same time, they claim that it has been corrupted by sin.

This should provide evidence that there is something about homosexuality that sets it apart in the mind of many Christians, when compared with other laws of nature.

For instance, do Christians justify heterosexul marriages of normal people with people with Down Syndrome, are sterile or have some known horrible sleeping genetic problem that will very likely be inherited and instantiated? Technically, this is also against so-called laws of nature as depicted by Aristoteles. But I think you will have a problem to find Christians that go on the barricades to stop that from happening.

So, let's cut through the chase. Do you think that such a cherry picking metaphysical view about nature finalism has any merit or deserves some sort of intellectual respect?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

Because the idea that you can derive objective moral principles by the observation of teleology has always been what is meant by "natural law" There's nothing to be specific about, because that is what natural law means!

...

I have already posted your sentence with "natural law" in it, that I replied to!


What you are saying here is ABSOLUTE BULL!


Which is why I posted the definitions for "natural law, after those first posts! WAY BACK!


Go back and take a look - and then get back to the subject of the thread as I have already said!



*

 

[AlphaAlex115]

That's actually exactly the point I'm trying to make!
You said homosexuality is "unnatural." Unnatural means not found in nature. Homosexuality is found in nature. How complicated are you going to pretend this is?

When did i say that lol?

 

[dgirl1986]

Heh. In Romans it said not only that God turns people gay for not loving him or whatever but also that when you judge others you condemn yourself...sooo....

1:26 etc
2:1

Another reason to avoid religion.

 

[sojourner]

Heh. In Romans it said not only that God turns people gay for not loving him or whatever but also that when you judge others you condemn yourself...sooo....

1:26 etc
2:1

Another reason to avoid religion.

It would help if everyone stopped taking verses out of context.

 

[dgirl1986]

It would help if everyone stopped taking verses out of context.

What context should they be taken in?

 

[Glaurung]

Ok. I see. We should try to put ourselves in Christians philosophical shoes so that we see their logic behind "against natural law".

If you believe that the world was created by an intelligence, it follows that everything within the natural world would have a intended purpose which can be rationally understood. There's nothing irrational here.

Fine. But I don't see how that could be useful in a debate.

I wasn't here to debate the validity of natural law. I've been forced to explain it several times though.

Fine. But I don't see how that could be useful in a debate. You can make up a lot of premises to justify basically anything. For instance, I could say that sons are like their fathers justifying, thereby, something like the the caste system or genocide. For me, it does not make a lot of difference, since I do not relly care whether homosexuality is attacked by Christians or supporters of Aristoteles.

And believe it or not, I don't give one jot what your opinion is.

Read what I actually said

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3972078-post521.html

I simply pointed out a fact in response to a particular point. The idea that I'm advocating for anything is simply hysterics.

Actually, this is not true. i understand more a supporter of Aristoteles than a Christian, who is supposed to give support to all people that have a so-called disadvantage because of the brutal nature we inherited from sin. It is mind boggling that they attribute value to the laws of nature when, at the same time, they claim that it has been corrupted by sin

Christianity is not about "helping people". Christianity, is the acceptance of Christ as God incarnate and the salvation offered by his death and resurrection. Christianity makes moral demands, and whether you like it or not those demands hold that homosexual acts are immoral.

It's simply not your twenty-first century, progressive secular-humanist morality. And I question anyone who thinks it can ever be so.

For instance, do Christians justify heterosexul marriages of normal people with people with Down Syndrome, are sterile or have some known horrible sleeping genetic problem that will very likely be inherited and instantiated? Technically, this is also against so-called laws of nature as depicted by Aristoteles. But I think you will have a problem to find Christians that go on the barricades to stop that from happening.

Firstly, it's Aristotle. The system of thought that based itself on his works is called Aristotelianism.

My contention is that the traditional Christian view on sex and marriage is coherent, not that it's necessarily "right"

It's not so much that a couple must be capable of producing offspring, but that they do not do anything that wilfully violates the purpose of sexuality as intended by God which is known by natural law. So sex between a man and a woman, even if infertile, does not violate the designs of bonding and procreation in principle. Homosexual acts always do.

I'm not saying it's right, but it is a coherent view.

So, let's cut through the chase. Do you think that such a cherry picking metaphysical view about nature finalism has any merit or deserves some sort of intellectual respect?

That depends on your own metaphysical views. I simply answered question concerning a why. I never gave any moral opinion on homosexuality whatsoever.

 

[sojourner]

What context should they be taken in?

the context in which each was written.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is not about "helping people". Christianity, is the acceptance of Christ as God incarnate and the salvation offered by his death and resurrection. Christianity makes moral demands, and whether you like it or not those demands hold that homosexual acts are immoral.

It's simply not your twenty-first century, progressive secular-humanist morality. And I question anyone who thinks it can ever be so.

Hold the bus, Cochise! The moral demands Xy makes have a lot more to do with how others are treated than about one's own disposition. Xy is all about building loving relationships, not about self-condemnation.

Xy is a living religion, and demands that definitions of morality and righteousness revolve around how loving relationships can be built in any given cultural climate -- not around maintaining some arbitrary and anciently-understood "standard." It's why Christians are able to eat pork and shellfish and wear 50/50 cotton/poly shirts. Acts that foster loving relationship are to be applauded -- not vilified and suppressed.

 

[viole]

Firstly, it's Aristotle. The system of thought that based itself on his works is called Aristotelianism.

Makes sense. For a second i thought it could be called Platonism

My contention is that the traditional Christian view on sex and marriage is coherent, not that it's necessarily "right"

Got that.

It's not so much that a couple must be capable of producing offspring, but that they do not do anything that wilfully violates the purpose of sexuality as intended by God which is known by natural law. So sex between a man and a woman, even if infertile, does not violate the designs of bonding and procreation in principle. Homosexual acts always do.

I am not so sure. Consider a 20 years old boy that marries a 80 years old woman. I think that violates the design as well ... always. You have zero chance to have a kid from a 80 years old woman. Everybody knows that. You do not need special 21st century genetic tests to know that.

So, what is it? I mean, after all I expect that sexual acts are called so because they involve sexual parts. And sexual parts are involved in procreation, in general, independently from the awareness of the involved parties of being able to have babies.

The fact that homosexuals cannot possibly procreate does not seem, prima facie, to provide sufficient reasons to exclude that the bonding, which is ultimately driven by the designed sexual acts which they actuate on themselves, is not there.

But probably, we do not have to go that far. What about being heterosexual, fertile and yet staying single? Is that according to the Aristotelian design? Should we outlaw single people because they fail to instantiate the natural design? And what about masturbation or other forms of self-sex which are also necessariliy homosexual? True, they do no like it, either, but they do not try so hard to outlaw it, for obvious reasons, lol.

What about sperm banks? Are they also conform to Aristotle view? Why not outlaw them as well?

I'm not saying it's right, but it is a coherent view.

It is not coherent. And it is not right... not even wrong. It is just nonsensical.

That depends on your own metaphysical views. I simply answered question concerning a why. I never gave any moral opinion on homosexuality whatsoever.

I did not ask you to. And that has nothing to do with my metaphysical views. I asked you whether that deserves intellectual respect.

I actually think that honestly admitting that homosexual acts are simply disgusting is much more respectable than invoking ridicolous pseudo-intellectual phylosophical excuses.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dgirl1986]

the context in which each was written.

To appease you I have read it in context and still the meaning doesnt change.

 

[sojourner]

To appease you I have read it in context and still the meaning doesnt change.

Ok, but the point isn't that "God will turn you gay if you don't love God."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To appease you I have read it in context and still the meaning doesnt change.

Romans 1 is referring to Pagan sacred sex rites. It's condemning backslidden Christians who took part in those rituals.

 

[Ingledsva]

Romans 1 is referring to Pagan sacred sex rites. It's condemning backslidden Christians who took part in those rituals.

Absolutely correct.


Here it is again.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~


Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.




*

 

[dgirl1986]

Absolutely correct.


Here it is again.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~


Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.




*

Is this plain or an interpretation because I dont see that there.

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


Even if it did state this as the case...many would relate this to the worship of the flesh which = sex. Enter abrahamic religious understanding of homosexuality and WHOOP there it is.

 

[Ingledsva]

Is this plain or an interpretation because I dont see that there.

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


Even if it did state this as the case...many would relate this to the worship of the flesh which = sex. Enter abrahamic religious understanding of homosexuality and WHOOP there it is.

That is just a different translation. It obviously Says the same thing, even with the translation differences.

The word they have translated "creature" is actually "creation," as this is Sacred Sex.

Also the word translated "serve," means to render religious homage.


It is not homosexuality. It does not say they worship the flesh.


It specifically says they changed the worship of God - to worship and service/RELIGIOUS homage of creation. This is Sacred Sex.




*