Spirituality
21 Dec 08
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterLol ... 10% of which population ? How do you know that.
If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah simply because it was full of people who liked the opposite sex then he was wrong.
Statistically this wouldn't make sense though because homosexuals form less than 10% of the population.
Would you say that S&G had a normal distribution and all strata of society were equally represented?
Look pal ... I think I can find better things to do than to educate you.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by Rajk999When was the last time you witnessed or heard of a group of gay people gathering outside of a person's house and demanding to rape the inhabitants? Is this what gay people do when they get together in large groups? I daresay not.
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was great, and examples of their sin were clearly stated... it was homosexuality.
Whats your answer to the same question - Did God destroy Sodom and Gomorah purely due to homosexuality?
The Sodomites were violent criminals, and though they "went after different flesh" they were still no more gay than you or I; that is, their natures were corrupted. The Bible does not preclude the possibility that there are people who are born without an attraction to the opposite sex, to whom homosexual practice does not involve sinfully giving up the natural for the unnatural.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...not only that, you are attributing an act that is CLEARLY, let me say that again, CLEARLY condemned in the word of God and stating that God created it, is too much.
you purport to be a christian, how does that make you qualified to justify whether God accepts homosexuality or otherwise, its incredulous, you have exalted yourself above the word of God, something that Christ never done, not only that, you are attributing an act that is CLEARLY, let me say that again, CLEARLY condemned in the word of God and statin ...[text shortened]... called theology so that they can establish their own criteria which supersedes the word of God.
Who created the person born with both male and female genitalia and sexual characteristics?
Is it "too much" to say that God created the unisexual?
25 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KIt really does not. Many biological urges, if not most, are not socially acceptable.
I repeat that I accept that the fact it may be a biological urge does not justify it per se. What it does do is legitimise it as one of many urges that some human beings are subject to (like the urge to protect children or eat food).
It really does not. Many biological urges, if not most, are not socially acceptable.
With regards to our u made the point that whether a behaviour has a genetic explanation is not a moral justification.
Is the unisexual socially acceptable?
If you were born a unisexual, having both male and female genitalia and sexual characteristics, what would you do with yourself? Would you get a sex change operation? If so, how would you determine which sex you would become?
Would you base your decision upon which sex you felt desire for, whether you could fall in love with a man or a woman?
How would you fit into God's plan? Does He care for you? Does He want you to be fulfilled? Is He on your side?
Please answer these questions.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI'll give you a few reasons why I think unisexuals are pertinent to this discussion:
No. I do not see why unisexuals are pertinent to this discussion.
(1) The existence of unisexuals shatters the notion that God created all people equal; i.e., equally capable of fulfilling what has been called "the natural law".
(2) If an individual can be born with both male and female physical characteristics, it is plausible that persons may be born with the psychological make-up of the opposite sex, in itself requiring no outward physical deformity. The person "born gay" is essentially a man born with a woman's body, or a woman born with a man's body.
(3) A unisexual is physically incapable of either transgressing or fulfilling the church's sexual status quo, which means a unisexual cannot be judged based strictly upon whom the unisexual sleeps with, whether male or female. Therefore, at least in some known instances, sexuality has to be judged according to the heart, i.e., whether or not a person is actually transgressing his or her own nature (something, of course, only God knows).
(4) How would you determine what sex God meant the unisexual to be, if He did mean for the unisexual to be a certain sex? You would have to rely upon sexual desire, i.e., whether the unisexual were capable of falling in love with either men or women. In this instance sexual desire is of great import, why then is it less important for the woman who was born with male genitalia, or the man who was born with female genitalia?
__________
That's all I can think of for now.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasSome counter-questions.
I'll give you a few reasons why I think unisexuals are pertinent to this discussion:
(1) The existence of unisexuals shatters the notion that God created all people equal; i.e., equally capable of fulfilling what has been called "the natural law".
(2) If an individual can be born with both male and female physical characteristics, it is plau ...[text shortened]... o was born with female genitalia?
__________
That's all I can think of for now.
(1) The existence of unisexuals shatters the notion that God created all people equal; i.e., equally capable of fulfilling what has been called "the natural law".
How so? Are unisexuals incapable of celibacy?
(2) If an individual can be born with both male and female physical characteristics, it is plausible that persons may be born with the psychological make-up of the opposite sex, in itself requiring no outward physical deformity. The person "born gay" is essentially a man born with a woman's body, or a woman born with a man's body.
Do you think a gay man would be offended to read himself being described as a "woman with a man's body"?
(3) A unisexual is physically incapable of either transgressing or fulfilling the church's sexual status quo, which means a unisexual cannot be judged based strictly upon whom the unisexual sleeps with, whether male or female. Therefore, at least in some known instances, sexuality has to be judged according to the heart, i.e., whether or not a person is actually transgressing his or her own nature (something, of course, only God knows).
Again, a unisexual need not be an impulsive sex-addict. Quite possibly some are capable of celibacy.
(4) How would you determine what sex God meant the unisexual to be, if He did mean for the unisexual to be a certain sex?
Why need a unisexual be of either sex? God does not protect people from a number of deformities, so why should it be particularly upsetting to find that some people have deformed sexual organs?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
25 Dec 08
1 edit
epiphinehas, it seems to me that I've been a bit rash in judging you. It's something we all do with our fellow humans; sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. I've been wrong in some my own labels regarding you. I'm quite surprised at your objectiveness regarding sexuality. While that does not mean I agree with our previous theological disagreements, it does mean that I recognize where I am in error in assessing another person. Clearly, in and of my own mind, I am gravely in error in regards to you and for that you have my most profound apologies.
This thread has been an eye-opener for me in the respect of how I view your opinion regarding sexuality. At this point I don't care if you agree with me or not regarding sexuality; your objectivity is enough. That's all I really care about, is objectivity.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo I ask you the same question I asked KW,
When was the last time you witnessed or heard of a group of gay people gathering outside of a person's house and demanding to rape the inhabitants? Is this what gay people do when they get together in large groups? I daresay not.
The Sodomites were violent criminals, and though they "went after different flesh" they were still no more gay than you o ...[text shortened]... o whom homosexual practice does not involve sinfully giving up the natural for the unnatural.
Was God, in your opinion, wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterInteresting point, as there was an Old Testament passage where God prohibited people with certain defects from entering the temple (or was it called tabernacle then?). Anyway, the bottom line is...no. God gets to decide what sin is, and what it isn't. I may not like it, but hey--He's God and He makes da rules. As far as your wondering if we have a "right" to know how or why He came to His decisions regarding sin, and whther or not they must fit our patterns of logic or reason-------nope.
Do you not think it is at least slightly relevant that we have an inkling as to why something is sinful?
If God declared that being born with a deformed arm was sinful would not be curious as to what his thinking was on this - or would you find it a bit bizarre?
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by Rajk999It's possible that S+G had a higher percentage of homosexuals within it's borders but statistically it's not likely unless there was some socialogical / biological reason for it.
Lol ... 10% of which population ? How do you know that.
Would you say that S&G had a normal distribution and all strata of society were equally represented?
Look pal ... I think I can find better things to do than to educate you.
Maybe you could educate me as to why these places had such a high number of homosexuals? If that is indeed what you believe.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe problem with your argument is that in the vast majority of cases it is indeed possible to figure out why God has declared certain things sinful. His laws on behaviour make sense and have a consistent pattern to them that include the following principles..
Interesting point, as there was an Old Testament passage where God prohibited people with certain defects from entering the temple (or was it called tabernacle then?). Anyway, the bottom line is...no. God gets to decide what sin is, and what it isn't. I may not like it, but hey--He's God and He makes da rules. As far as your wondering if we have a "rig ...[text shortened]... s regarding sin, and whther or not they must fit our patterns of logic or reason-------nope.
Mental / physical health of the individual
Respect for relationships
Treating others as you would like to be treated
Social harmony and cohesion
Justice and fair play
Honouring that which is holy and sacred and not superficial
Non violence and peace
Compassion towards the poor and weak
I really struggle to think of anything declared as a sin that doesn't fit into these catagories. I can understand why adultery , murder , theft , drunkeness etc are sins. It makes sense.
What's more I think God is intensely interested in us finding out why he has declared these as sins because in fully understanding why these things are sinful we are growing spiritually. Your view of God seems to be that he wants us to be kept in the dark - well that's not a loving father in my book. When I lay out a set of rules for my own children I think it's great when they understand why I have set them out. I also know that if I tell them not to run past the oven and they understand why then all's the better.
I really don't get where you are coming from.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by Conrau KWhy need a unisexual be of either sex? God does not protect people from a number of deformities, so why should it be particularly upsetting to find that some people have deformed sexual organs?
Some counter-questions.
[b]
(1) The existence of unisexuals shatters the notion that God created all people equal; i.e., equally capable of fulfilling what has been called "the natural law".
How so? Are unisexuals incapable of celibacy?
(2) If an individual can be born with both male and female physical characteristics, it is plausi ...[text shortened]... uld it be particularly upsetting to find that some people have deformed sexual organs?
------conrauK------------------------------
Now we are getting somewhere. What IS upsetting is that such a deformity is then declared an abomination or something. If homosexuality is proven to be caused by a biological dysfunction in the womb (eg over or under flooding of testosterone) then in some ways it could be called a "deformity" (no intention to be offensive).
If this is so then the Church's stance on homosexuality could be said to be highly discriminatory. What do you think was the level of awareness amongst the Bible writers regarding discrimination and attitudes towards sexuality? I would suggest that they were in the dark ages and the scripture they produced at times was as well.
25 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KBecause once you look deeper into the whole area of sexuality and intersex children and understand what happens during foetal development it becomes much harder to be clear cut about anything. Gender and sexual orientation can be a very muddy grey area and highly complex. These are the brute facts about sexuality and they don't fit easily into the clearly defined lines that the Bible tries to draw.
No. I do not see why unisexuals are pertinent to this discussion.
It raises philosophical questions reagrding how we define sexuality and gender. For example , do we use genitalia as a guide or DNA? How do we decide what a man is and what a woman is? Is it decided by brain structure for example?
If a person has a man's body but is shown to have a feminine developed brain and also has female DNA are they male or female? What if they had ovaries , would that change things?
You see unless we are able to clearly define gender in all cases then how can we be certain regarding homosexuality ? We live in a complex strange world.