Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[Autodidact]

I respectfully disagree. I know many unmarried couples gay and straight who have no problems being monogamous.

Speaking for myself, I not only have no problem with it, but enjoy it greatly. Frankly, I think it's sexy. The idea of having sex with someone else does not appeal to me. In addition, why would I mess up my good thing?

 

[sandandfoam]

It's not the post, it's the attitude that's fostered by Christianity and some other religions, that you can't possibly condone equal rights for homosexuals. It causes otherwise decent Christians to vote for anti-LGBT referenda and against referenda that would give us equality, because they think they owe it to God to approve of our having limited civil rights.

I don't think it's altogether right to attribute this narrow minded attitude to Christianity (although in the light of some of the stuff I've seen here I can see why you would), I think it's a cultural thing, using Christianity to push a conservative agenda . In 2005 the openly gay Anglican Bishop, Gene Anderson, was giving an address entitled "Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?"
In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.
''Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the gospels to support it," he said.
Bishop Anderson sounds like my kind of Christian, I have no knowledge of the bible but I'm prepared to accept that the Bishop does.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course. You are merely stating the all-encompassing law of God for this universe that we live in: Cause and effect. God merely tells us what to avoid so we can avoid the effect it will have. For example, if you drink poison, you will die, regardless of whether you are a holy man or a sinner. But, God does have special cases in his Laws that allows him to show miracles that seem to be against the law of cause and effect (i.e. science that has not been discovered yet).

So, living hygienically stems disease and viruses. Islam gives an excellent example of physical cleanliness that I have not found anywhere else (ablution 5 times a day, bath on friday, brushing as often as possible, and many others).

So in regard to homosexuality, for every cause, there is an effect. Whether that effect is physical (disease) or spiritual (out of favor of God) or both, God tells us about it, and helps us prevent it through religious teachings.

It seems like those Muslims need to brush up on their cause and effect, to increase the lifespan in Muslim countries, which is rather low.

 

[Autodidact]

I admit, there seems to be very little hard data about the rate of STD's and AIDS in lesbian couples, except the observation that disease seems to be less prevalent among lesbian partners. Therefore, without hard data, your opinion that lesbians have it safest is just that: just an opinion. But like I said, whatever the actual numbers be, they fall short of heterosexual couples who don't practice pre-marital sex.

But, you can not ignore the fact that for at least male homosexuals, that prevalence of AIDS among them is much, much higher, both in actual numbers and as a percentile, then the general heterosexual public.

Right. It's higher for gay men and lower for lesbians. What's your point?

In regard to your question about what the Holy Qur'an specifically says about female to female conjugal relations, it is not spelled out that "women will not take women as partners". Rather, it lets us know that men can only take women as partners, and that muslim men and women should remain chaste before marriage. The Holy Prophet has also commented on this in a Hadith where he has forbidden any man to look on another man who is naked, and any women from staring at another women who is naked. So, I would say that I speak for all muslims when I say that female female sex is strictly forbidden in Islam.

Your conclusion did not follow from your scriptures. It seems like as long as you lay off the staring, you're fine. Sounds like you're just prejudiced.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It seems like as long as you lay off the staring, you're fine. Sounds like you're just prejudiced.

That's precisely why expressed sexuality like adultry and homosexuality is an easy target for religions. It gives them something concrete to shoot at, rather than the moving target of rather hard things to define like "lust."

 

[Autodidact]

It is not the job of people to punish other over their personal choices, unless it conflicts with social peace. As far as I know, the Holy Prophet never punished anyone unless they were a direct threat to the overall peace of society. So, it is wrong to punish gay people, it is merely our job to educate them. The Muslim countries who do so are under wrong assumptions.

What is it you wanted to educate me about? The Qu'ran? O.K., but since I don't believe in it, we're done. You want to "educate" me to enjoy sex with men? Why? Will that benefit me somehow? And how exactly do you plan to do that? I prefer to make my own choices, thank you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And how exactly do you plan to do that?

 

[Smoke]

I don't think it's altogether right to attribute this narrow minded attitude to Christianity

I do. There are plenty of LGBT Christians, and plenty of heterosexual Christians who approve of equality for LGBTs, but there is no major Christian denomination in the US that treats homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals, and only one that I know of that endorses civil marriage for same-sex couples. To be a member of almost any Christian church is morally indistinguishable from belonging to a restricted country club, and effectively demonstrates that even if you personally favor inclusion and equality, you believe that exclusion and inequality are equally valid options. I could live with that, if they didn't tend to think that what's valid for their church is valid for society as a whole.

 

[Autodidact]

57% is not a statistically significant number?!? Hmm...what if I told you that 57%, or more then half, of cancer patients given a special treatment, along with regular treatment, recovered significantly better? Of course, it's not statistically significant in your eyes, so should we just ignore it?

Not comparing the same things. If you told me that 57% of the studies say it's effective, and 43% say it isn't, that there is not good evidence that it's effective.

Just some more food for thought, here's another study:
[/quote]

The methods of Byrd and Harris have been criticized by other researchers: Efficacy of Prayer Skeptical Inquirer - Find Articles

"Study finds prayer doesn't help promote healing." The article summarized the largest and most rigorous scientific study conducted to date of distant prayer for healing. The research had held out much hope for proving or disproving the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. Previous studies were smaller, some had design flaws, and results had been mixed.
The Templeton Foundation, which looks for links between religion and science, granted $2.4 million for the research. The large scale study, with 16 authors, was published in the April 2006 issue of the American Heart Journal with the title "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients." Summaries were reported in The New York Times and other newspapers throughout the country.

The research divided 1,802 heart bypass surgery patients at six hospitals into three groups. Two groups were told that they might or might not be the beneficiaries of healing prayer by people they did not know. Persons in one group received prayer; those in the other group did not. Participants in the third group were informed they would receive healing prayers, again by unknown persons.

Members of three religious communities, two Catholic and one Protestant, did the praying.

Results were surprising and disappointing. Patients without the benefit of prayer had the best results, with 51 percent suffering complications within 3o days after the surgery. Patients who were told they might or might not receive prayer but actually did fared about the same, with 52 percent complications. Those with the most complications, 59 percent, were in the group who knew they were being prayed for!

one meta-analysis of 14 such studies concluded, “There is no scientifically discernable effect for Intercessory Prayer (IP) as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.” Masters KS, Spielmans GI, Goodson ST. Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.

Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:21–26

DURHAM, N.C. – Distant prayer did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures, researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and seven other leading academic medical institutions across the U.S. have found.
Publication: Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association
Publication Date: 22-DEC-03
Author: Conti, James M. ; Matthews, William J. ; Sireci, Stephen G.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of intercessory prayer on a wide range of medical and psychological measures for critically ill patients.... No other statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for expectancy, intercessory prayer, or positive visualization on the remaining dependent measures. Analysis of effect sizes on all dependent measures failed to indicate even a small magnitude of effect for intercessory prayer on the medical or psychological variables. Therefore the effects of intercessory prayer cannot be distinguished from the effect of expectancy, and thus do not appear to be effective treatment interventions.

To carry out a confirmatory experiment one that would leave no possibility of an alternative explanation the investigators would have to produce evidence of an effect that could only be explainable by a force unknown to science, such as the intervention of a deity or its agent. There are some outcomes that could eliminate most doubt about experimental artifacts and they would have to involve dependent variables that could not occur except by divine intervention. Investigators would have to identify a dependent variable that could withstand the lemon test, one that would yield clearcut results. There are such variables.
For example, one very simple experiment, the results of which would leave little or no doubt about the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, could involve the regeneration of an amputated limb.[9] All that would be required is an adequate sample of amputees as subjects and a sizeable number of believers who will earnestly pray over them. These should not be hard to locate. The investigators could use as many universities and people as possible – all the willing believers in the country if necessary to pray every day for a year that at least one amputee would have a limb re-grown, and then, at the end of that year, examine all the thousands of amputees for signs of regenerating limbs.
Any amputee who wants to be included in the experimental group would be examined beforehand by a panel of physicians to ascertain that he or she is indeed an amputee. DNA samples on the subjects would be taken before and after the study to ascertain that the amputee identified at the beginning would indeed actually be the person who was examined a year later. There would be no limit on the sample size. No need for randomization, t tests, analyses of variance, factor analyses, significance levels, or confidence intervals. The subjects would present themselves at the end of the year and be examined to see if a single missing limb had been restored. Any priest, minister, rabbi, or lay person would be permitted to recommend subjects for the experiment, and any could observe the examination for the regenerated limbs. There should be no limitation on the number of amputees, people who pray for them, and observers to keep everything organized and uncontaminated.
When a single limb has thus been observed to have been regenerated, then we will have seen unequivocal evidence for the power of prayer. This would be a real test to put before the immovable object; the irresistible force; the ultimate omniscience, the omnipotent, omnipresent supremacy of all that the believers in a supernatural being endow that Master Architect with. The creator of the entire universe should have no problem re-creating a limb.

About Intercessory Prayer: The Scientific Study of Miracles
Gil Gaudia, PhD, Professor Emeritus
What do you think would be the result of such an experiment? Why do you think it hasn't been conducted?

 

[sandandfoam]

I do. There are plenty of LGBT Christians, and plenty of heterosexual Christians who approve of equality for LGBTs, but there is no major Christian denomination in the US that treats homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals, and only one that I know of that endorses civil marriage for same-sex couples. To be a member of almost any Christian church is morally indistinguishable from belonging to a restricted country club, and effectively demonstrates that even if you personally favor inclusion and equality, you believe that exclusion and inequality are equally valid options. I could live with that, if they didn't tend to think that what's valid for their church is valid for society as a whole.

The seperation of church and state is vital. Religious beliefs have no place whatsoever in civil society. I applaud you in your efforts to confront narrowmindedness and discrimination. I believe in equality for all and while it must feel like you are banging your head off a brick wall continuing to defend your corner is the only way that a change in the mindset of those who would discriminate against you will happen.

 

[Scott C.]

Suppose He told you He had selected a man. Would your trust go that far?

I think it would have to be God in person, face to face, for me to accept that one, as it contradicts everything he has said through his prophets. Then, I would probably question if I was hallucinating.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

God dont care. WHo can say god would punish a man for being gay, thats uncivillised and bad for our society, we need to drop that thought or our society is screwed.

 

[Scott C.]

Must be nice to have a direct line to God that way. Since you're in charge of knowing God's will, would you mind telling us where you got that information. Can you even substantiate that there is any such being?

I think atheists and believers have gone round and round on the issue of proving God long enough. I don't know what more I can add. I do not mean to be or sound arrogant in "knowing the mind of God" and I'm not sure what I said that made you think I'm in charge of knowing God's will. I simply believe that God has revealed certain things through His prophets. When I express my views, I'm expressing how I feel about what I believe that God has revealed. Everyone is free to believe or not believe that there is a God or if he has ever revealed anything to mankind. It shouldn't come as news to you that there are lots of people who believe in a certain way of living, because they believe there is a God who has asked them to live that way.

 

[McBell]

I think atheists and believers have gone round and round on the issue of proving God long enough. I don't know what more I can add. I do not mean to be or sound arrogant in "knowing the mind of God" and I'm not sure what I said that made you think I'm in charge of knowing God's will. I simply believe that God has revealed certain things through His prophets. When I express my views, I'm expressing how I feel about what I believe that God has revealed. Everyone is free to believe or not believe that there is a God or if he has ever revealed anything to mankind. It shouldn't come as news to you that there are lots of people who believe in a certain way of living, because they believe there is a God who has asked them to live that way.

Though I do not believe that you mean it in this way...
It sounds like an excuse to do whatever you want.

 

[Random]

It sounds like an excuse to do whatever you want.

It may be. What's wrong with that, anyway?

 

[Smoke]

It may be. What's wrong with that, anyway?

Nothing, except they reserve the privilege to themselves.

 

[Autodidact]

I think atheists and believers have gone round and round on the issue of proving God long enough. I don't know what more I can add. I do not mean to be or sound arrogant in "knowing the mind of God" and I'm not sure what I said that made you think I'm in charge of knowing God's will. I simply believe that God has revealed certain things through His prophets. When I express my views, I'm expressing how I feel about what I believe that God has revealed. Everyone is free to believe or not believe that there is a God or if he has ever revealed anything to mankind. It shouldn't come as news to you that there are lots of people who believe in a certain way of living, because they believe there is a God who has asked them to live that way.

Then in future, I suggest that you say so, like this, "In my opinion...", "I believe that..." and the like.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Dam! WHat does it take to get quoted around here?

 

[Marzipan]

Dam! WHat does it take to get quoted around here?

Amen to that!

 

[Sunstone]

Amen to that!

I'll second that.