A
Avinash
Guest
Namaskar Marsh,
![Smile :) :)]()
I mentioned the openly gay politicians in my country first (among all the other gay citizens) because they are usually the last to come out. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.
I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped nor diseased nor unnatural nor do any of their friends consider them in a such a way. I must admit they have no religious friends though.![Wink ;) ;)]()
Except for fundamentalist religious people, I think most people would agree with what scientists have to say on this point. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas. I cannot argue with your ideas because I believe in rationality.
I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.
And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.
Regards,
Andrew
Again, the connection between sin and homosexuality which in my eyes is illogical and morally suspect. But we seem to be moving in circles here.Marsh said:Point 1: Free will. It led to sin. Sin has consequences.
Point 2: Yes, and there is a cure. His name is Jesus![]()
Point 3: I care very little about the attitudes of politicians. If you haven't noticed, politics isn't a very moral sporting arena. By the way, if you would have actually read my last post you would have noticed that I explicitly said that homosexuality was not a problem.
I mentioned the openly gay politicians in my country first (among all the other gay citizens) because they are usually the last to come out. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.
As for homosexuality not being a handicap... I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience. Homosexuals will not share such an experience. I feel that is a handicap.
I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped nor diseased nor unnatural nor do any of their friends consider them in a such a way. I must admit they have no religious friends though.
Point 5: So you were there in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that you can make this claim?
Except for fundamentalist religious people, I think most people would agree with what scientists have to say on this point. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas. I cannot argue with your ideas because I believe in rationality.
Point 6: So then it isn't me speaking for God, but the scripture. And so it should be. Which has more authority: the word of one's fancy, or the word of God? Or if you don't believe that the scriptures are the word of God, then call it wisdom that has withstood thousands of years.
I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.
No, I think the reason why we will not come to an agreement in this matter is far more complex than you think.
And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.
Regards,
Andrew