Originally posted by josephwThe question was (and still is): Do you believe that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals? Another way of looking at this aspect of the issue would be to ask you whether you see homosexuals as being people who are, in fact, naturally heterosexual but who choose to engage in homosexuality.
The question you posed is not only not relevant, it is a bizarre concept without rational purpose for critical thought. It's like asking whether a dog is a cat or a bear a moose. It has no meaning and defies logic and truth.
Originally posted by FMFI didn't say sin. I said what I meant. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
I think, when you use the word "morality" here, you are in fact referring to "sin" which I take to mean acts that you believe are transgressions of God's will. "Morality" and "sin" are not synonymous.
Be that as it may, but since you mentioned it, if it's immoral it's a sin.
Truth is simple that way. One either agrees with it or one doesn't.
Originally posted by FMF"With your trenchant condemnation of homosexuals,.."
"Denial" of what exactly? There is no shortage of reactionary religious people with strong views who claim that there are no such people as homosexuals, just perverted heterosexuals, or words to that effect. With your trenchant condemnation of homosexuals, I am asking you if you subscribe to such a stance on human sexuality. It is absolutely germane.
Correction, I do not condemn homosexuals. I condemn the act. Get that perfectly clear and don't accuse me of condemning people again.
I'm not "reactionary" either. I see myself as proactive as it should be clear to see to you.
Your penchant for inserting inflammatory language into a discussion, and presuming that I and/or others fit your preconceived biases is well understood.
1 edit
-Removed-Dude! I was just pulling your chain.
Hear me dive. I have no such ill feelings as that would cause me to be as aggressively insulting as that. Yes I don't like sexual immorality, but I don't hurl insults at those who practice it. I condemn the act, but I'm nobody's judge. I let the Word of God do that.
Originally posted by FMFFMF, you're going too deep. It's just not that complicated. Right and wrong needn't be so over psychologized. It only muddies the water.
The question was (and still is): Do you believe that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals? Another way of looking at this aspect of the issue would be to ask you whether you see homosexuals as being people who are, in fact, naturally heterosexual but who choose to engage in homosexuality.
It's all about what we feed our head. We are what we think. It has been my life's effort to simplify the complex into irreducible principles of absolute truth. Basic fundamentals that are common to all. Like breathing.
Originally posted by josephwNo. I'm pointing out to you that, to my way of thinking - as a non-superstitious person - that it is a mistake to treat "immorality" and "sin" as synonymous. If you're talking to other Christians it's probably OK. But if you're trying to communicate ideas with non-believers, then I think treating the two words as synonymous is an error.
I didn't say sin. I said what I meant. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMilitant Muslims are another story entirely.
Apparently, you've been living under a tarp somewhere: a sound-proof, impenetrable tarp which keeps not only sound but even the very concept of the outside world from ever troubling your cocoon.
Just a few years ago, it was commonly known that the other 98% of the population not only disapproved of homosexuality, the majority of that near majority foun ...[text shortened]... estyle, they get labeled haters, homophobes.
What do we call militant Muslims who kill gays?
They kill heterosexuals who hold hands in public.