Walter Russell
Member
If you can't observe the world around you I can't help you understand.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would God approve homosexual "unions"
- Thread starter C-Faith
- Start date
If you can't observe the world around you I can't help you understand.
Walter Russell
Member
I do get what your saying and I respect you Carlita. 
Tools weren't created for any one usage. Creating new functional capabilities is all that matters.Tools were not created in order to procreate and isn't a valid comparison.
Have fun with your turkey baster though, I won't hate on it...
I'm not really comparing anything, anyway. Just pointing out that naturalistic arguments break down when a. Attempting to argue that 'natural = good' and 'unnatural = bad' when neither is demonstrably true (homosexuality doesn't actually hurt human reproductivity, gays can and do have children) and b. Relying on an ambiguous definition of what 'natural' is. (Clothing is a manufactured product by humans therefore is unnatural but honey is a manufactured product by bees therefore natural.)
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Yet it is ok to own slaves, bash babies' heads on the rocks and rape the women you conquer...
Only if you accept the authority of Romans1:26-28.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I wouldn't see why not? If I were against homosexuality, I wouldn't see it no different, that is if I thought of anything as imbalance, as a mother eating their cub. I'd justify it because life is precious and to take away a life is beyond my comprehension of acceptance. If I had a child, I would never do that. Likewise, if I saw homosexuality the same way. I would think it's imbalance because a man and a woman are made physically have sex. Anything outside that, I would consider imbalance as well.
However, those would just be my morals not the morals or natural order, if you like, of nature/life. Nature whether whoever we are attracted to and what animal eats their cub are both natural and part of the natural order. There is no imbalance in life in and of itself. It is our morals and our beliefs that dictate what nature and life should be. We shouldn't see ourselves as the center of the universe.
I actually don't understand what you're saying. The phrase itself.
I just know there are no imbalances in nature. We see it that way because they go against our morals. I just don't see it that way. Our morals dictate how we see things and how we want our children, for example, to see things. If I were to "date" my future wife, there is already a presumption of what we do behind close doors.
Without knowing, how can we know that what we do is imbalanced?
I guess I'm saying, I don't understand how homosexual actions are imbalanced when homosexuality is about sexual orientation, and the actions are practiced by all people GBLT and S.
How can homosexuality be imbalanced when it is not about actions?
When you say it is about actions, you are adding those who are straight into the mix. So it isn't about homosexuality.
What would be another word for what people against it are describing? It's just not making sense to me.
However, those would just be my morals not the morals or natural order, if you like, of nature/life. Nature whether whoever we are attracted to and what animal eats their cub are both natural and part of the natural order. There is no imbalance in life in and of itself. It is our morals and our beliefs that dictate what nature and life should be. We shouldn't see ourselves as the center of the universe.
I actually don't understand what you're saying. The phrase itself.
I just know there are no imbalances in nature. We see it that way because they go against our morals. I just don't see it that way. Our morals dictate how we see things and how we want our children, for example, to see things. If I were to "date" my future wife, there is already a presumption of what we do behind close doors.
Without knowing, how can we know that what we do is imbalanced?
I guess I'm saying, I don't understand how homosexual actions are imbalanced when homosexuality is about sexual orientation, and the actions are practiced by all people GBLT and S.
How can homosexuality be imbalanced when it is not about actions?
When you say it is about actions, you are adding those who are straight into the mix. So it isn't about homosexuality.
What would be another word for what people against it are describing? It's just not making sense to me.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Homosexuality/homo.html
Islam as well as Christianity take a dim view of homosexuality.
My personal view is that homosexuality is unnatural and a repulsive act.
I'm straight you see.
However I do NOT hold with punishing homosexuals in any form at all.
Islam as well as Christianity take a dim view of homosexuality.
My personal view is that homosexuality is unnatural and a repulsive act.
I'm straight you see.
However I do NOT hold with punishing homosexuals in any form at all.
Walter Russell
Member
Tools weren't created for any one usage. Creating new functional capabilities is all that matters.
I'm not really comparing anything, anyway. Just pointing out that naturalistic arguments break down when a. Attempting to argue that 'natural = good' and 'unnatural = bad' when neither is demonstrably true (homosexuality doesn't actually hurt human reproductivity, gays can and do have children) and b. Relying on an ambiguous definition of what 'natural' is. (Clothing is a manufactured product by humans therefore is unnatural but honey is a manufactured product by bees therefore natural.)
When did I say or imply good or bad?? I didn't. I'm spoke only of balance or imbalance to cause and effect.
Each person decides on their own how they define good or bad.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
OP seems to not be interested in debating much, at least not with a Muslim. (Judging that he/she ignored me completely after my first post here).
That is sad. Especially bringing up such a controversial topic. I'd hope people at least want to understand multiple views even if they disagree. At least, thats for me. I look for understanding.
Don't know what to say.
So 'balance' isn't a substitute word for good and 'unbalance' a substitute word for bad? How and why are we defining it as unbalanced anyway? Because again, the whole of humanity being homosexual doesn't prevent humans from reproducing. And really arguing from the 'what if the part were the whole' is kind of a reduction to the absurd anyway.
Walter Russell
Member
Many religions teach the principle of giving. No one would argue that if everyone gave to help others the world would be a better place.
That same principle is found throughout creation but in addition, its structure is that of opposites. This structure is responsible for all of creation. They maintain each others balance by voiding each others imbalance allowing creation and the life cycle to exist.
The bear may have sensed an imbalance in the cub and voided it by eating it or had an imbalance herself in which eating the cub may have voided.
Imbalances will always be balanced by being voided. The voiding act would be the effect and the cause would be the imbalance.
This is happening every day whether we are aware of it or not.
For the record I have 2 gay members of my family. One is immediate family. We have been close since childhood and I see them no differently than anyone else.
McBell
Unbound
In other words, you have no intentions of even trying to support your empty claims.
No worries.
I suspected you are merely advertising your favourite book.
Problem is that you are actually doing it a disservice.
Walter Russell
Member
Lol honestly I don't know why what I said caused such a stir. I never said good or bad.
I get what your saying about todays technology and reproduction but it still requires a man for the donation of sperm regardless how its administered.
The only way it would be natural in my op for men to desire men sexually or wonen to desire women sexually is if procreation could take place in that manner. Until men have a womb and produce eggs and women can produce semen its not the natural order.
With that said I make no attempts to control anyones way of life as long as their not hurting others as don't want anyone trying to control mine.
A) This is not gospel
B) If taken as righteous teaching, and staying consistent with Pauline rhetoric, then "better to marry than to burn with passion." But as Paul says elsewhere, better for all persons (regardless of sexual orientation) not to marry. Funny how some Christians wish to deny that.
C) Not advocating for marriage among people who have strong desire for physical union strikes me as anti-Christian from most of the contemporary understandings.
D) I'm always interested in how a so-called Christian gets around this stuff. Especially curious when they cite a passage but seemingly are neglecting what is being said in that passage.
Walter Russell
Member
What does a book have to do with the ability to observe and know that it takes the semen of a male species to fertilize the egg of a female species for procreation??
At this point I think your just trolling me, if not maybe try rephrasing your question so I can understand what it is your asking.
And yes The Secret of Light is an outstanding book!
All of his books are great. "Atomic Suicide" is a must read aswell.
Homosexuals didn't like the language in the K.J.V. if the Christian Bible so they had the
Queen James Bible printed for them.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-James-Bible.html
Don't care for what the Bible says?
Then just have your own version printed to justify anything you desire.
Queen James Bible printed for them.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-James-Bible.html
Don't care for what the Bible says?
Then just have your own version printed to justify anything you desire.
By this type of assertion, Jesus would be immoral for having same-sex relations with male apostles.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I honestly don't understand what you are saying. I'ma try to comment.
How do you void each other's imbalance?
I don't see anything imbalance. Whatever is a part of life, happens, its causes and its affects are a part of life itself. If it causes something unhealthy (say cells become cancerous) then that "imbalance" to a doctor would be reason to help find a cure. In general, cells turning to cancer cells isn't an affect of imbalance nor is it an imbalance.
It was explained to me by a paramedic when I had a seizure. He says seizures are normal (balanced). People may have one seizure in their life time if that. The neurons are not fix (my words) to a natural order (no more than ol' Pluto and the innormality of the changing seasons
Natural order, in my opinion, is created by us. It's a need to find structure and purpose. That's why we grieve when someone dies unexpectedly. We found the natural order that humans are "supposed" to live until about one hundred. Later in years, we are realizing that anything could happen. So, there is no natural order to life in and of itself because anything can and does happen. We just find patterns to better live.
Good example.
If you are familiar with the Deaf community, you are a bit ahead. The D-eaf community is not built on the inability to hear. It's build on like experiences, common language, what one can do, community, creativity, acting (for lack of a better word now), and culture.
Yet, people find a Deaf person imbalance because they cannot hear. Likewise people find it imbalance that homosexuals have the inability to be attracted to the opposite gender.
d-eaf people (lower D) refers to individuals who may not identify with the Deaf community and more important, a person's inability to hear. This can be likened to the inability to have sexual attraction to the opposite gender in a homosexual.
In regards to many homosexuals, we are discussing we are the former. We do not identify ourselves with who someone is by what's between their legs. (As a hearing person would see a deaf person's inability to hear). We are talking about our identifying with someone by who we are attracted to and it so happens to be someone of the same-sex. Our culture, shared experience, etc relates to the former I talked about with Deaf individuals. It has nothing to do with action (inability to hear), it has to do with community (how one identifies themselves).
As such, when you call our actions (inability to hear) imbalance, you are basically saying that we are imbalance. It is like saying that how we express love (or how a Deaf person communicates within his/her culture) is somehow off and not part of the natural order.
People in the past called Deaf/deaf people deaf and dumb. People still call them many names. Likewise with homosexuals. They call us f-, q- and so forth rather than addressing Deaf and homosexuals how we want to be addressed and who we are as part of the natural order.
Nothing is imbalanced. I'd say any religion that sees that is not a healthy religion. It's very descriminative to people who do not share those views and those views are not part of life itself. Like people had views that homosexuality was a mental disorder. The Catholic Church thinks we have a disease of some type (in their CCC), and the list goes on.
I know not everyone can step from their bias but if they can see what their biases are affecting people, hopefully they would change how they view things even if they still disagree. Until then, we'll always be debating "if homosexuality is a sin" and define who we are by what we do (who a Deaf person as by their inability to hear)
I find that wrong. Unhealthy. Immoral. Not part of the natural order.
I used to study ASL to be an interpreter. I have three friends who are Deaf and used to interact with Deaf culture more intimately. That's how I know there is a difference. Since I am only hard of hearing, I don't share the same experiences as Deaf people.
However, with homosexuals, I do. It's sad and a very nasty way of looking at society whether one is respectful or not. The perspective is off not the person who has it.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Walter Russell You don't have to comment to everything. Just expressing my thoughts.
Exact quote (from the non gospel portion of NT):
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
Must be nice to be a murder (of Christians) and come to this conclusion of who is sanctified and who isn't and feel oh so righteous in that assertion. In the event that lots of benefit of reasonable doubts are given to Paul, it would seem to be a grave mistake to use scripture to revile anyone that doesn't fit within one's own understanding of Christian righteousness. Hence this chapter is directed to such revilers, letting them know they are not welcome into God's Kingdom for as long as they would try to separate what God has joined.