Sexuality

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The Christians have no problem with science that may prove homosexuality to be genetic. It would still be a sin to practice it, just as it is a sin to drink to excess even if you are genetically predisposed to do so. No problem here--Christendom is cool with science, God's in His heaven, and all's right with the world. 😏

It would still be a sin to practice it, just as it is a sin to drink to excess even if you are genetically predisposed to do so.---floyd------


So how might such a sin be overcome?

Also it's obvious that drinking excessively is harmful and leads to violence and ill health. I don't see how two men making love harms anyone.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It would still be a sin to practice it, just as it is a sin to drink to excess even if you are genetically predisposed to do so.---floyd------


So how might such a sin be overcome?

Also it's obvious that drinking excessively is harmful and leads to violence and ill health. I don't see how two men making love harms anyone.

How is any sin overcome? In fact, did not Christ say that he who sins is a slave to it? I think you know the answer.

Originally posted by knightmeister


So how might such a sin be overcome?

Also it's obvious that drinking excessively is harmful and leads to violence and ill health. I don't see how two men making love harms anyone.

If you want debate or my personal opinion I won't bore you with it. If you want biblical reference and are genuinely interested in fnding the truth about what you are asking. Then amoungst other references:

To overcome: Romans 7 particularly vs 7 to 24

Homosexuality: NT - 1 Cor 6:9, OT - Lev 18:22

Originally posted by whodey
A tenuous link? I simply wrote about two forms of sexual practices that are looked at in a dim view Biblically. However, what you have done is reinterpret the spirit in which they were given. For example, why make ANY sexual laws at all? After all, what business is it of any one elses who you share your bed with? From your interpretation, you view the la ...[text shortened]... divorce is a "good" thing and condoned by a God that at one times seems to have condemned it.

You seem to be going off the subject somewhat. How about getting back on track.

The first point is that if homosexuality is shown to have biological causes from pre-birth then how is it to be viewed? In my mind it really changes everything. It would show that sexuality in humans is deeply hardwired into us from about the earliest age possible. It would also suggest that homosexuality is not a "life choice" or a " post adolescent" behavioural issue. How could it be said to be a "sin"? Would you say someone who had a genital deformity was sinning? I think not.

The second point is that you clearly did make a comparison between homosexuality and promiscuity. You seemed to say that accepting one implied that I was accepting the other. However , the important thing to bear in mind is the issue of hurting others by an act of choice. Promiscuous behaviour can hurt others and the self emotionally and devalues the sexual act , as well as divorcing it from it's connection with meaningful relationships. It also can be unhealthy sexually

Homosexuality does not in and of itself hurt anyone or is neccessarily shallow and superficial. The only thing that distinguishes it from heterosexuality is that both are the same sex and no children result from it. There is nothing that the homosexual is doing that can be said to be harmful to others. It does not fragment society and does not create violence or unrest.

I think what happened is that some very primitive feelings of disgust and discomfort got mistaken for moral values. Those who wrote that homosexuality was an abomination no doubt had strong emotional reactions against it (if I am honest I felt a bit quezy myself the first time I saw two men kissing) - but these feelings are not the same as moral repugnance because they are rooted in biological reactions within us. There are evolutionary reasons why we might feel these things.

The people who wrote that it is an abomination were probably responding to very deep feelings of revulsion which are more to do with biology than morality. Sex is one of the most powerful drives within us and any morality around it is going to be influenced by very powerful instinctual drives. How much of the Bibles morality around sex is rooted in these drives ? Why do Christians feel so strongly about this issue as if society itself would collapse if we said it was Ok for a few men to make love behind closed doors?

Hundreds of gay Christians are lost to the church because we have messed up on this whole issue and we are scared to look it in the face. Some end up killing themselves - that's the real abomination!

Originally posted by whodey
How is any sin overcome? In fact, did not Christ say that he who sins is a slave to it? I think you know the answer.

If the Bible said that heterosexuality was a "sin" , how would you begin to overcome it? Would you even want to overcome it? Would you not even ask God why you had to?

What about if God said you had to overcome your desire to blink - what then? Could you "un" hotwire it from your own brain?

How about if God said he wanted to heal you from your ability to feel hunger?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the Bible said that heterosexuality was a "sin" , how would you begin to overcome it? Would you even want to overcome it? Would you not even ask God why you had to?

What about if God said you had to overcome your desire to blink - what then? Could you "un" hotwire it from your own brain?

How about if God said he wanted to heal you from your ability to feel hunger?

That would be an aweful situation to be in. Having been a sinner all my life, i'm thankfull that God is mercyfull. Nevertheless his law and righteousness remain.

Originally posted by divegeester
That would be an aweful situation to be in. Having been a sinner all my life, i'm thankfull that God is mercyfull. Nevertheless his law and righteousness remain.

I saw you post on the zenu thread and whilst it was a witty take on Jack Nicholson's speech from a Few Good Men , it was just a rip off really. The way you are posting now makes my suspicious.

Having been on this forum a while , my sixth sense tells me that you are one of those who likes to jerk people off. Before we go any further could please establish whether you are infact a deeply troubled and sad timewaster or whether you want a serious reasoned response.

Forgive me if I have misjudged you but I'm bored of wasting my time with forum journey men.

Originally posted by knightmeister


The first point is that if homosexuality is shown to have biological causes from pre-birth then how is it to be viewed? In my mind it really changes everything. It would show that sexuality in humans is deeply hardwired into us from about the earliest age possible. It would also suggest that homosexuality is not a "life choice" or a " post adolescent" ...[text shortened]... aid to be a "sin"? Would you say someone who had a genital deformity was sinning? I think not.

Don't you believe that mankind was born into sin? If so, then sin tendencies are already "hard-wired" into us. Secondly, just because we may have a predisposition in terms of being attracted sexually to various people in no way gives us a green light to act upon them no matter how bad we may lust after them. In this regard, ALL sexual practices then become a choice. For example, what if Christ acted upon his attractions? Would it have been a sin for him to marry a woman? Although it would have been within his right under the law, would it have been the will of the Father? Obviously, it was not part of the will of the Father because he did not pursue it and we all know that he was all about doing the business of the Father. Having said that, was it "fair" for God to have asked him to suppress his sexual urges in your opinion even though it was "hard-wired" into him?

And lastly, sexual deformities are another issue in my opinion. For example, if they have both sexual organs or if they are indistinguishable as to what sex they happen to be, this simply is not covered Biblically as far as I know. Of course, I could give you my opinion but I think it is taking the issue at hand off topic.

Originally posted by knightmeister

The second point is that you clearly did make a comparison between homosexuality and promiscuity. You seemed to say that accepting one implied that I was accepting the other. However , the important thing to bear in mind is the issue of hurting others by an act of choice. Promiscuous behaviour can hurt others and the self emotionally and devalues the se ...[text shortened]... divorcing it from it's connection with meaningful relationships. It also can be unhealthy sexually

The ONLY comparison I made between homosexuality and promiscuity was that they are both labeled as sin Biblically. My point was, if you are then going to take one of them and say that it should no longer be a sin as opposed to the other, you must state why.

I think you have stated this when you say that promiscuity should remain a sin because it has the potential to hurt others and the self emotionally and devalue the sexual act, as well as divorcing it from it's connection with meaningful relationships. In addition, it is viewed to you as being unhealthy sexually. Just bear in mind that there are those out there who argue even these points. In fact, I have been in many a conversation that have refuted all your points, and pretty effectively I might add. That is the problem I see here. Anything and everything can be argued ad nauseum as these threads bear witness to. However, what does God think of it, no matter how good or bad the arguments supporting it or detracting it may be? After studying the scriptures and praying about it, if this is truly what you think the will of God is for you or for another, that is your business as well as theirs. However, I would be wary of calling good bad and bad good as the apostle Paul forewarns about so as to not lead others potentially astray if you are not sure.

Originally posted by knightmeister

Homosexuality does not in and of itself hurt anyone or is neccessarily shallow and superficial. The only thing that distinguishes it from heterosexuality is that both are the same sex and no children result from it. There is nothing that the homosexual is doing that can be said to be harmful to others. It does not fragment society and does not create violence or unrest.

You say this as if NO homosexual unions have not caused unrest or fragmented society, however, is this the case? I know of many families that have been devastated by loved ones who venture into that life style. In fact, is society not fragmented over the issue as we speak? In addition, I have heard some of my gay friends say how much more promiscuous the gay life style is in comparison to the heterosexual scene. If they are correct, you could then say that the life style promotes promiscuous behavior. I even have a gay friend who hates being gay. It is not for some religious reason nor is it because his family has rejected him for it, rather, he simply wishes he were straight. Perhaps it is because he wishes to fit social norms? Who knows?

So why do I say these things? It is to show that any thing can be argued ad nauseum as I said before. So who really cares what I think or what others think? The one you want to be sure about is what God thinks.

Originally posted by knightmeister

The people who wrote that it is an abomination were probably responding to very deep feelings of revulsion which are more to do with biology than morality. Sex is one of the most powerful drives within us and any morality around it is going to be influenced by very powerful instinctual drives. How much of the Bibles morality around sex is rooted in the ...[text shortened]... f society itself would collapse if we said it was Ok for a few men to make love behind closed doors?

Be careful now. I got a similar feeling when watching films about the Holocaust. Had you considered the possibility that the feelings that produce revulsion is part of our innate conscience that warns us good from bad?

Originally posted by knightmeister

Hundreds of gay Christians are lost to the church because we have messed up on this whole issue and we are scared to look it in the face. Some end up killing themselves - that's the real abomination![/b]

Hundreds of Christians are lost to the church for a myriad of reasons. Just read Christ's parable about the sower and the seed. So should we then change church doctrine so as to include as many people as possible? If I recall, the road is narrow, not broad.

I would agree that the response to certain sins within the church supercede the reaction to other sins. For example, I brought up the issue of divorce. Clearly, if one calls them self a Christian, they should have a problem with divorce and particularly remarrying afterward. However, as we see today the church does not live accordingly and does not so much as bat an eye yet if you bring up homosexuality they tend to get holier than thou. The possible hypocrisy and self righteousness of Christians should not factor in as to whether God sanctions homosexuality. In addition, if homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, we are held responsible in the eyes of God to continue to walk in love with them despite this fact. If not, they will be held accountable.

Originally posted by whodey
The ONLY comparison I made between homosexuality and promiscuity was that they are both labeled as sin Biblically. My point was, if you are then going to take one of them and say that it should no longer be a sin as opposed to the other, you must state why.

I think you have stated this when you say that promiscuity should remain a sin because it has the p e apostle Paul forewarns about so as to not lead others potentially astray if you are not sure.

I don't see where the Bible explicitly condemns all homosexuals. In fact, the word "homosexual" is a mistranslation - the correct translation should read "sodomite", e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9, and sodomites are a class unto themselves. Have you ever heard of a gang of gay folks gathering outside of someone's door demanding they be allowed to rape the inhabitants? I highly doubt it. The Bible is alluding to a criminal behavior; in the Sodomites' case criminal behavior which happens to involve sexual humiliation and domination. It happens in prisons all the time. What the Bible does not explicitly condemn are those who may have been born gay; those who did not give up the natural use of their bodies for an unnatural use in a sinful way, but those to whom attraction to the same sex has always been a natural response.

Personally, I have never experienced any confusion about my own sexuality; since I can remember I have been attracted to the opposite sex. Even the idea of having sex with another man repulses me. Do I deserve a medal for this? Heterosexuality comes naturally to me - big deal. In the same way, though, homosexuality comes naturally to others. As you know, whodey, I have a brother who is gay, and he's expressed to me in no uncertain terms that even the idea of sex with a woman is repulsive to him. I believe my brother when he tells me this. (It's not that he hates women; in fact, most of his friends are women.) Why would he lie? I see no reason why he would, especially in the face of so much harassment from a bigoted populace.

My brother is not promiscuous at all, by the way. If you met him, you'd find a person who is incredibly easy-going, intelligent, and a joy to be around. Not a sodomite, anxious to gang rape another man if given half the chance. Even the idea is insulting in reference to my brother, but I bring it up in order to highlight the absurdity of lumping all gay folks in with the sodomites, which seems to be the literalist's only way of dealing with "the gays".

KM brought up an excellent point about unisexual people. Unisexuals pose an extraordinary problem to this neat, clean view of the world that we Christians love to idealize. Once I brought up the existence of unisexuals in a Bible meeting and all I heard in response was disgust. "God is punishing their parents for taking drugs and fornicating back in the 60's," was one reply. So? Even if that is true, how does that change the fact that there is another individual in the world who cannot possibly fit the status quo which the Church champions? Do we force this person to pick a sex, get an operation, and stay with that choice or be in danger of the judgment? And how, pray tell, would we suggest a unisexual pick which sex they'll become? Would we base it upon which sex they are attracted to? If sexual desire is not a reliable referent, then how would you suggest helping a unisexual conform to God's original template, Adam and Eve?

It is a ridiculous notion to think that all of God's creatures are created equal.

Originally posted by knightmeister
First of all you link homoseuxality with promiscuity , which is a tenous link.

Actually, he didn't. He used analogies to illustrate a point: genetic disposition to any sexual behaviour is not a justification for that sexual behaviour. No doubt there may be genetic explanations for promiscuity, bisexuality, pedophilia, sexual aggression (such as rape) and whatever. This is not to say that homosexuality is on par with sexual promiscuity, but it does illustrate that simply demonstrating that there might be a biological basis for sexuality is not a moral argument in itself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I saw you post on the zenu thread and whilst it was a witty take on Jack Nicholson's speech from a Few Good Men , it was just a rip off really. The way you are posting now makes my suspicious.

Having been on this forum a while , my sixth sense tells me that you are one of those who likes to jerk people off. Before we go any further could please es ...[text shortened]...

Forgive me if I have misjudged you but I'm bored of wasting my time with forum journey men.

Hi KM.

Not sure what you are driving at by this post. The "few good men" thing was humour in another thread already containing humourous posts, and was obviously a "rip-off" as I pasted the script from the film and changed a few words for an effect! Not sure what has jogged you into this challenge of my integrity this thread, but obviously something has? Looking at what I've said carefully I see nothing wrong with it per-se.

Wether or not I'm a timewaster is a matter for you to judge based on what you read I suppose, but I assure you that it is not my intention as I enjoy the debate and banter in these forums. I'm interested in a response as to why you feel so strongly as if there is something I've said that is specifically offensive then I will consider retracting it.

Regards,
DG