The question of the Christian and the homosexual

[MaddLlama]

How very strange you call that "logic".

It's a logical fallacy, so it has the word "logic" in it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just more proof that religion as an institution is sexist, racist, homophobic, restrictive, and generally limiting to human advancement.

I resent that! Religion does not limit human advancement.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

One of the whole points of the Christian message is that we are genetically flawed. This is traced back to Adam. The next point of the message is that the escape of the genetic flaw is to be regenerated through Christ. Glorifying sin and calling it acceptable does not diminish it.

 

[Anti-World]

The main argument within christianity to support homosexuality is that it is simply a sexual orientation and a different viewpoint. I pointed out 4 other sexual viewpoints that are considered morally wrong. I don't care about the consent I don't care about which ones are started at birth. Those were not a part of the argument. Homosexuality being moral solely on the fact that it's just a different viewpoint does not hold water. Bringing in different outside variables doesn't contradict my logic.

Now if any of you want to believe that zoophiles, child molesting, and fornicating is right that's up to you. That's the beauty of belief.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I resent that! Religion does not limit human advancement.

Ever heard of the Enlightenment?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ever heard of the Enlightenment?

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

 

[michel]

The main argument within christianity to support homosexuality is that it is simply a sexual orientation and a different viewpoint. I pointed out 4 other sexual viewpoints that are considered morally wrong. I don't care about the consent I don't care about which ones are started at birth. Those were not a part of the argument. Homosexuality being moral solely on the fact that it's just a different viewpoint does not hold water. Bringing in different outside variables doesn't contradict my logic.

Now if any of you want to believe that zoophiles, child molesting, and fornicating is right that's up to you. That's the beauty of belief.

To whom which ways are you not about to be answering to?

Your "logic" (and I thoroughly dispute that desription) is flawed, my friend. Outside variables ??? - such as one is genetic whilst the others are (mostlikely) chosen styles ??

Methinks you're backing a dead horse..........

 

[Anti-World]

:/ I dislike spelling things out.

Backing a dead horse? Bah. I'll let you decide, just like anyone else, what is morally right concerning sex. The bottom line is that homosexuality is accepted out of belief. There's no arguing with it.

Homosexuality Genetic: So is psychopathy, does this mean we allow psychopaths to kill people?

Homosexuality is a viewpoint: Some people like really fat people, some like skinny people, some like interracial, some like bondage, some like children, some like old people, some like animals. How do you plan on distinguishing which ones are wrong?

Consent: Children are capable of saying "yes". According to the law children can not give consent but that is not a basis of morals but a reaction to them. Animals can enjoy sex with human beings. Necrophiliacs certainly don't have a problem getting consent either.

I can't see where the basis for calling one of these things moral and not the other. I'm a simple person, however, and in my mind it's easier just to state man and woman, that's it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ever heard of the Enlightenment?

Yes! Wiki helped prove the point:

"Religion was linked to another concept which inspired a great amount of Enlightenment thought, namely the rise of the Nation-state...The original focus of his [ Johann Gottfried von Herder] scholarship was to delve into the meaning in the Bible and in order to gain a deeper understanding of it. These two concepts - of the contractual nature between the state and the citizen, and the reality of the nation beyond that contract, had a decisive influence in the development of liberalism, democracy and constitutional government which followed."

 

[Anti-World]

:/ I dislike spelling things out.

Backing a dead horse? Bah. I'll let you decide, just like anyone else, what is morally right concerning sex. The bottom line is that homosexuality is accepted out of belief. There's no arguing with it.

Homosexuality Genetic: So is psychopathy, does this mean we allow psychopaths to kill people?

Homosexuality is a viewpoint: Some people like really fat people, some like skinny people, some like interracial, some like bondage, some like children, some like old people, some like animals. How do you plan on distinguishing which ones are wrong?

Consent: Children are capable of saying "yes". According to the law children can not give consent but that is not a basis of morals but a reaction to them. Animals can enjoy sex with human beings. Necrophiliacs certainly don't have a problem getting consent either.

I can't see where the basis for calling one of these things moral and not the other. I'm a simple person, however, and in my mind it's easier just to state: man and woman, that's it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

To whom which ways are you not about to be answering to?

Could you translate that into English for us?

 

[Anti-World]

Woops. I posted the same thing twice. My bad.

 

[michel]

:/ I dislike spelling things out.

Backing a dead horse? Bah. I'll let you decide, just like anyone else, what is morally right concerning sex. The bottom line is that homosexuality is accepted out of belief. There's no arguing with it.

Homosexuality Genetic: So is psychopathy, does this mean we allow psychopaths to kill people?

Of course we don't - although your choice of words is absurd; "we allow psychopaths to kill people" implies that we follow them around, and say "Go kill".

The psychopath cannot be excused; but there is a valid reason for his act.

A very important difference - excuse and reason. Think about it.

In my mind, God will look into the psychopath's heart and forgive him "For he knew not what he was doing".

 

[MaddLlama]

Homosexuality Genetic: So is psychopathy, does this mean we allow psychopaths to kill people?

Ok, well let me spell out the difference for you:

We don't let psychopaths kill because killing hurts people
We don't let pedophiles have sex with children because it hurts the child
We let gay couples have relationships becuase they don't hurt anybody

Savvy?

 

[michel]

Could you translate that into English for us?

As far as I knew that was written in english.........:yes: :no:

It's a form of safety valve; when I feel a "rant" coming on, I resort to gibberish.

A famous Author (well, famous is relative) called Dornford Yates once wrote a whole series of books - which were centered around a family of wonderfully imagined fictional people, who all had a wonderful sense of humour, used the phrase

"I never should about have been to could ............negated all the way" when dealing with a particularly "Job's worth" type of person..

He also coined the "My shoes feel very full of feet" after a long walk......never mind, ignore me, I'll go to sleep soon, like a good little boy, when those nice men in white coats......................................:cover:

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The world is coming to an end! I have PROOF! The proof is I have to go with anti-world on this one.

 

[joeboonda]

I'm not quite sure how this was a reply to my post. Other than some of the rather Protestant ideas which i do not share (such as you saying they are already saved), I don't actually disagree with you. Homosexuals should be welcomed in the Church but the Church has a duty to tell them the Truth, and that is that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. I don't agree with you with regards to the clergy. I'd have absolutely no issue with homosexual celibate clergy at all but i would also state that unrepentant sinners of any kind would be denied the Eucharist for their own good in Orthodoxy. This would be no different for me than for a homosexual - the sins might differe but the result would not. I also feel that you put too much of an expectation on God in what you say above. We, after all have to work out our salvation - in other words we have to put effort in too and simply expect God to do it all for us. Works might not save you, on that we agree, but they can certainly help reform you and the Church, as a hospital for sinners, is bound to help you to do whatever you need to to reform yourself. On the whole, though, I think we agree. It's just that you're looking at it through a Protestant lens that I cannot and will not use whereas I'm looking at it from an Orthodox perspective.

James

I think we basically share the same ideas. I do not believe anyone is 'already saved'. We are only saved the moment we trust in Christ, that His death paid for our sins. We all struggle with sin up to and after that point in time. I agree that all sinners should be welcome to attend a church service (how else can they hear the gospel and be saved, and, we're all sinners, just some of us are sinners saved by grace and hopefully growing in grace.) I did not mean to say a celibate homosexual could not be a pastor, deacon, etc. I just don't think a practicing one, one who does not see it as a sin should be in the clergy. If someone has accepted Christ as Saviour, I would grant them communion, that is all I would think is required, any sin they may be struggling with would be between them and the Lord. (Of course an 'unrepentant sinner' to me is someone who has never changed their mind about the fact that they are a sinner in need of a saviour and never changed their mind about how they think they can earn or obtain salvation on their own and not through trusting in Christ to save them, communion would not be a good thing in that case.) Again I think we agree that we are saved by grace through faith, not works. You say we must work out our salvation, the verses go on to say 'with fear and trembling, then they say that it is God who works in us...This is not that we must sit down and 'work it out', think it out, but rather that we are 'working out' a salvation we already possess (the moment we trusted Christ), that is the works we are doing for the Lord, and by the power of the Lord, we are to do with great care and all diligence, because it is an important duty as we represent the Lord and souls are at stake. I hope that made sense, lol. I do not know a whole lot about protestant and orthodox, as I am neither one, I am just a Christian, having simply trusted alone in Christ alone to have saved me. God bless.

 

[UnTheist]

:/ I dislike spelling things out.

Backing a dead horse? Bah. I'll let you decide, just like anyone else, what is morally right concerning sex. The bottom line is that homosexuality is accepted out of belief. There's no arguing with it.

Homosexuality Genetic: So is psychopathy, does this mean we allow psychopaths to kill people?

Homosexuality is a viewpoint: Some people like really fat people, some like skinny people, some like interracial, some like bondage, some like children, some like old people, some like animals. How do you plan on distinguishing which ones are wrong?

Consent: Children are capable of saying "yes". According to the law children can not give consent but that is not a basis of morals but a reaction to them. Animals can enjoy sex with human beings. Necrophiliacs certainly don't have a problem getting consent either.

I can't see where the basis for calling one of these things moral and not the other. I'm a simple person, however, and in my mind it's easier just to state: man and woman, that's it.

Psychopaths are not genetic, and they can hurt people

Homosexuality is genetic, and they don't hurt people. Get it?

None of the viewpoints you stated are wrong. It is all personal preference, therefore people will disagree with what somebody else likes. There is nothing wrong with Man and Man. Why? Because they don't hurt society, and they don't hurt themselves.

 

[robtex]

. There is nothing wrong with Man and Man. Why? Because they don't hurt society, and they don't hurt themselves.

---------

I am not seeing the arguement I hear in person made by christians and muslims so I am going to throw it out there for you theists to defend. In contrast to the qoute by PaWz my understanding is the trangression of morality is not man vs man but man vs God.

In my understanding of inerrant theology is that God wants man to pro-create which means find a mate of the opposite sex and use copulation as a means to bring more children of God onto the planet. Any hedonistic use of sexuality that is not able to create off-spring is not a transgression of man but of God's divine will.

The arguement being that using sexuality and copulation for purposes other than pro-creation is using for reason (motive) not intended by God. The only reason for this to even be applicable is the religious arguement of free will. That God gives man a choice to obey or not to obey.

If this arguement is correctly interpreted, than irregardless of wheather homosexuality is genetic or a product of envirormental factors the God in question by interpetation of his followers commands that sex is only a tool for making babies nothing less and nothing more. Any other uses irregardless of reasoning is transgressing the SPECIFIC reason for God creating sex in the first place.

 

[UnTheist]

---------

I am not seeing the arguement I hear in person made by christians and muslims so I am going to throw it out there for you theists to defend. In contrast to the qoute by PaWz my understanding is the trangression of morality is not man vs man but man vs God.

In my understanding of inerrant theology is that God wants man to pro-create which means find a mate of the opposite sex and use copulation as a means to bring more children of God onto the planet. Any hedonistic use of sexuality that is not able to create off-spring is not a transgression of man but of God's divine will.

The arguement being that using sexuality and copulation for purposes other than pro-creation is using for reason (motive) not intended by God. The only reason for this to even be applicable is the religious arguement of free will. That God gives man a choice to obey or not to obey.

If this arguement is correctly interpreted, than irregardless of wheather homosexuality is genetic or a product of envirormental factors the God in question by interpetation of his followers commands that sex is only a tool for making babies nothing less and nothing more. Any other uses irregardless of reasoning is transgressing the SPECIFIC reason for God creating sex in the first place.

Men have the choice to not reproduce reguardless of whether they are Homosexual or not. If God wanted them to be Heterosexual, then He shouldn't have allowed Homosexuality to be genetic.

There are plenty of people who will bring more babies into this world to keep the human race alive and thriving. Why can't God just let the Homosexuals be the way they are and live their own life without being judged?