Spirituality
21 Dec 08
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by Rajk999I'm saying what I have said before: Sin is not in the act. There is not a list of dos and don'ts that makes you a sinner or sin-free.
I must be reading this the wrong way because it appears contradictory. What exactly are you trying to say here ?
The act of homosexuality is not the sin; it is not a sin. Where it is a sin lies other than the act itself. The act itself can be consentual, loving, monogamous, not harm anyone else, and as such be free of sin.
Whatever God I recognize does not condemn acts of love.
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is despite the fact that, as I have explained multiple times, biology does not offer any sort of moral code. Many behaviours, which you no doubt would see as heinously immoral, have biological origins. There is scientific litertature that indicates that a lack of seratonin can result in aggressive and violent behaviour, yet no one would accept that gratuitious violence is a moral good. So whether or not homosexuality is biological is totally irrelevant. I do not really care what science says about homosexuality.
This argument is incredibly frustrating. You label anyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe and anyone who believes in moral absolutes you dismiss as fascist. I think those generalisations are intellectually lazy. People can object to homosexual practices yet still interact amicably with homosexuals. Indeed, a homosexual could object to homosexual pract ...[text shortened]... biological is totally irrelevant. I do not really care what science says about homosexuality.
----------------conrau----------------------------------------------
One could argue that all behaviours have biological origins of some description or another. The point you completely missed is that some have different origins to others. Some behaviours are much more accessible to change than others. Have you tried to force yourself to stop breathing yet? Try it now - for real that is.
What did you find out? You found out that by sheer choice or force of will you could not override your own biology - that's because it was hard wired into your brain at a very early age. All the evidence suggests that sexuality is similar. Therefore , in theory , a homosexual cannot stop being a homosexual. That has moral implications in my view. I understand why you prefer to reject this idea , it's because it has theological ramifications. If science can help us and inform us about the Bible and morality then religious dogma cannot rule supreme.
You say that you " do not really care what science says about homosexuality " and that's a shame because it's going to tell us quite a lot I think. My bet is that it could show that homosexuality is caused by hormonal "dysfunctions" in the womb. At that point society might see that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but a different form of sexuality. I doubt very much whether society will see the emerging evidence as "totally irrelevant" - it will probably help inform people's views of homosexuality.
What's frustrating most of all is how so many get so hot and bothered about two people making love in private in their own way as if God had nothing better to worry about. Homosexuality is not heinous in and of itself and offers no threat to society. It is no more harmful than heterosexuality. The evidence is that violent people can learn to curb their tendencies and whilst this may also be true for homosexual behaviour - why should they ? Because it says in the Bible that it's abominable? Don't you think that it's a little interesting that that scripture was almost definitely written by men - and men are known to have the strongest reactions to homosexuality. Do you ever wonder why most men find gay sex between men more "abominable" than lesbian sex (which elicits strong reactions from women) .
Have a little think about why that might be?
While you are at it ask yourself why it has been labelled an abomination when it's not actually that harmful compared to other behaviours which are really really heinous and grievous to human happiness?
At the very least would you admit that the "sin" of homosexuality has received a disproportionate level of condemnation compared to other more pressing issues.
If there's one thing I find "abominable" it's fundie Christians preaching about the "evils" of homosexuality whilst parking their planet destroying 4x4s outside the church. I mean come on....whose the real causer or harm in that scenario?
You see no-one , including you , has been able to tell me why homosexaulity is actually supposed to be a sin. Who does it cause harm to?
If you say you have no interest in what science can tell us then you are opening yourself up to being patronised because you are saying in effect " I'm ignorant about this and I'm not bothered ".
🙄
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by BadwaterGood point.
I'm saying what I have said before: Sin is not in the act. There is not a list of dos and don'ts that makes you a sinner or sin-free.
The act of homosexuality is not the sin; it is not a sin. Where it is a sin lies other than the act itself. The act itself can be consentual, loving, monogamous, not harm anyone else, and as such be free of sin.
Whatever God I recognize does not condemn acts of love.
A heterosexual act can be more sinful if it takes place in a non loving way.
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydIs it not possible that God's Spirit inspired many passages but that it also is contaminated with the biases of men also? Just because God wrote it doesn't mean that there aren't some parts that got lost in the translation.
Although men actually put pen to papyrus in creating the Bible, it is still acceptable to say "God wrote it" by those of us who believe it was all inspired by His word.
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterYep .. a couple commandments got lost :
....Just because God wrote it doesn't mean that there aren't some parts that got lost in the translation.
11th Commandment : Thou shalt not own an gas guzzling SUV ..... 🙂
12th : A man can lay with another man provided there is love and comittment. It is not an abomination. .. 😀
13th : A heterosexual act is sinful if it takes place in a non loving way.
The Bible according to KM. You can start your own ministry .. 😀
02 Jan 09
Originally posted by BadwaterSounds like you are confused. But not to worry. You probably dont have it clear in your mind so its difficult to explain.
I'm saying what I have said before: Sin is not in the act. There is not a list of dos and don'ts that makes you a sinner or sin-free.
The act of homosexuality is not the sin; it is not a sin. Where it is a sin lies other than the act itself. The act itself can be consentual, loving, monogamous, not harm anyone else, and as such be free of sin.
Whatever God I recognize does not condemn acts of love.
The way I see it - attraction between two people of the same sex is not a sin. The sin starts with physical acts of homosexuality.
Fabricating a God to suit your beliefs is just like being an atheist.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
03 Jan 09
Originally posted by Rajk999I am not confused. I think there are two disagreements at work here: 1) I see sin as a spiritual divide and not just the dos and don'ts, and it seems to me that you don't, and 2) I don't see the homosexual joining of bodies in and of itself a sin.
Sounds like you are confused. But not to worry. You probably dont have it clear in your mind so its difficult to explain.
The way I see it - attraction between two people of the same sex is not a sin. The sin starts with physical acts of homosexuality.
Fabricating a God to suit your beliefs is just like being an atheist.
My God is no more a fabrication than yours or anyone else's.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by Rajk999The way I see it - attraction between two people of the same sex is not a sin. The sin starts with physical acts of homosexuality.
Sounds like you are confused. But not to worry. You probably dont have it clear in your mind so its difficult to explain.
The way I see it - attraction between two people of the same sex is not a sin. The sin starts with physical acts of homosexuality.
Fabricating a God to suit your beliefs is just like being an atheist.
---------rajk99----------------
I don't see how this is possible if you really believe homosexuality is a sin. Jesus clearly said that one can commit the sin of adultery in one's mind without any "act" taking place. If you really believe homosexuality is sinful then homosexual attractions must also be sinful , just as rape is sinful and so are thoughts of rape and lust. Adultery is sinful and so are thoughts or adultery/lust etc.
You are not being consistent - If an act is sinful then so is contemplating that act.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think I have to agree with Conrau K's conclusion about you. The word starts with 'i' and ends with 't', but its not 'intelligent' ... 😀
The way I see it - attraction between two people of the same sex is not a sin. The sin starts with physical acts of homosexuality.
---------rajk99----------------
I don't see how this is possible if you really believe homosexuality is a sin. Jesus clearly said that one can commit the sin of adultery in one's mind without any "act" taking place. If ...[text shortened]... c.
You are not being consistent - If an act is sinful then so is contemplating that act.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by Rajk999Any chance you can expand and tell me why my response to you made you come to the conclusion that I am an idiot?
I think I have to agree with Conrau K's conclusion about you. The word starts with 'i' and ends with 't', but its not 'intelligent' ... 😀
You seem to have been resorting to unsubstantiated comments more often then not recently. You imply that I am an idiot but don't say why. When I look back at my post objectively I don't see anything that is idiotic about it. I see a reasonably constructed argument with which you are free to disagree.
By coming out with these throw away one liners I'm afraid you just make yourself look silly. You think I am offended by them?
If you have something to say about my post then say it and back it up with an argument (if you have one) . Otherwise , you might as well not bother. All I end up thinking is that somehow the subject of the thread makes you feel uncomfortable and makes you unable to engage with it in a mature fashion.
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterPossible--and likely. That's why the only sctipure I believe to be truly divine was the original--and those do not exist today.
Is it not possible that God's Spirit inspired many passages but that it also is contaminated with the biases of men also? Just because God wrote it doesn't mean that there aren't some parts that got lost in the translation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat did you find out? You found out that by sheer choice or force of will you could not override your own biology - that's because it was hard wired into your brain at a very early age. All the evidence suggests that sexuality is similar. Therefore , in theory , a homosexual cannot stop being a homosexual. That has moral implications in my view. I understand why you prefer to reject this idea , it's because it has theological ramifications. If science can help us and inform us about the Bible and morality then religious dogma cannot rule supreme.
This is despite the fact that, as I have explained multiple times, biology does not offer any sort of moral code. Many behaviours, which you no doubt would see as heinously immoral, have biological origins. There is scientific litertature that indicates that a lack of seratonin can result in aggressive and violent behaviour, yet no one would accept tha ...[text shortened]... " I'm ignorant about this and I'm not bothered ".
🙄
I cannot understand your inability to comprehend the sheer simplicity of my counter-argument. It really is straightforward. If homosexuality is 'hard-wired into the brain', then quite probably pedophilia is. Since pedophilia is obviously morally reprobate, whether or not something is 'hardwired into the brain' has no moral implications. So whether homosexuality is 'hardwired' is irrelevant. It really is simple. I do not care what science has to say on homosexuality.
You show bizarre moral reasoning. Generally, when someone is unable to discharge their moral duty, we do not declare that moral duty null; we simply do not hold that person morally accountable. When a murderer claims insanity, we do not endorse murder now as a morally acceptable action; we just do not hold that murderer accountable. So when a homosexual claims he could not abstain from sex, that the sheer power of his desires overpowered him, we do not necessarily give approval to those desires; we just do not hold him morally accountable.
My bet is that the extent of your knowledge of science comes from wikipedia. Everything you have said about the biological causes for homosexuality is mentioned in the wikipedia article on causes for homosexuality -- thumb length, foetal hormones, ect, all are in the article. So do not lecture me about science. There is currently no winning theory. Indeed, if postmodern theory is true, no theory is possible because gender and sexual orientation are mere social constructs.
You see no-one , including you , has been able to tell me why homosexaulity is actually supposed to be a sin. Who does it cause harm to?
As I have repeated several times, I am not interested in that discussion. Actually, reading this thread again, no one is. All I am showing is that your original argument, that biology can vindicate homosexual behaviour as moral, is dead.
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by Conrau KAll I am showing is that your original argument, that biology can vindicate homosexual behaviour as moral, is dead.--------Conrau------------
[b]What did you find out? You found out that by sheer choice or force of will you could not override your own biology - that's because it was hard wired into your brain at a very early age. All the evidence suggests that sexuality is similar. Therefore , in theory , a homosexual cannot stop being a homosexual. That has moral implications in my view. I under ...[text shortened]... ur original argument, that biology can vindicate homosexual behaviour as moral, is dead.
Firstly , I have not looked at wiki at all for any references - I think that says more about where you looked than me. My understanding of this subject comes from a couple of books and some TV documentaries
Biology cannot vindicate homosexuality on it's own and I don't think I have claimed this. What I am saying is that our scientific understanding of something might well inform our moral stance towards it. If we did not know about torrettes syndrome we might take a different moral stance towards someone's profuse swearing in church.
You say that whether homosexuality is hard wired or not is irrelevant by using paedophilia as an example. However , it is a very poor analogy to make. Paedophilia is universally condemned because it is harmful to children. Homosexuality is not universally condemned. With paedophilia the biological science might be useful for treatment but not for deciding if such practices are acceptable or not. Homosexuality is different because of the controversy and debate around it , science can still inform the debate , whereas science will never convince any parent that paedophilia is acceptable.
However , despite the disgusting / hurtful nature of such acts against children it would make little moral sense for God to condemn such an individual on the basis of a hard wired biological nature that that individual has not chosen. But saying homosexuality is an abominable sin is very very close to saying the individual is condemned unless he changes. But how can he change? He may become celibate but he might still have the thoughts. Are the thoughts not also "sinful"?
I'm done with comparing the two because it does a diservice to those homosexuals who are in loving , compassionate relationships who are hurting no-one at all. I feel uncomfortable bringing the two together.
I have noticed that many fundamentalists seem to want to treat homosexuality as a behavioural issue and talk as if accepting homosexuality would cause otherwise heterosexual girls/boys to be "lead astray" . The evidence for this is weak , the evidence that our sexuality is very powerful and difficult to override is strong. Homosexuals are exposed to a vast amount of cultural pressure to become heterosexual and yet they still risk rejection and ridicule (sometimes death) in coming out.
I'm at a loss to explain it if you cannot see that biological understanding can inform our moral perceptions. I imagine that you find the whole idea quite threatening and want to make sure the very idea is extinguished. Whether that's for dogmatic reasons or personal issues I'm not sure.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterOk then, simple question, how could this not-yet-discovered biological explanation for homosexuality inform my moral stance?
All I am showing is that your original argument, that biology can vindicate homosexual behaviour as moral, is dead.--------Conrau------------
Firstly , I have not looked at wiki at all for any references - I think that says more about where you looked than me. My understanding of this subject comes from a couple of books and some TV documentaries ...[text shortened]... is extinguished. Whether that's for dogmatic reasons or personal issues I'm not sure.