As a Christian what are your thoughts?

[bob x]

Q:

So, homosexual behavior (which boils down literally to fornication) is no worse than sex between heterosexuals not married (fornication)...

"Sex between heterosexuals not married" was not "fornication" in the Old Testament: it was MARRIAGE. (Unless it was kept secret: furtive sexuality is what was condemned as "whoredom"; a sexual relation publicly acknowledged was, simply a "marriage".)

...nor sex with a married spouse not one's own (adultery),nor worse than lying to a neighbor, or stealing, or dishonoring mother and father, or being an un fair judge.

Of course it is entirely different from any of those things, in that it does not do evil to anyone. If your moral sense had the basis Jesus tried to teach you, distinguishing between what does good and does evil to other people, this distinction would leap right out at you.

Where the disdain of homosexuality comes from, I believe is due to God (according to the bible), stating it as being an abomination.

Like eating shellfish, or wearing clothes that have more than one kind of fiber in them? The real reason appears to be a need to have a group of people whom it is acceptable to look down on and kick.

So if God said it, then it must be ok for people to keep on with like mind.

All that we know for a fact is that primitive Middle Easterners said it, who were no more infallible than Middle Easterners of today, no more infallible than primitive peoples of any location on Earth, no more infallible even than modern-day Americans.

Russia:

I'm not saying " keep people unhappy because that's the right thing to do. " It's just that sometimes what might keep someone happy for the moment isn't best for them in the long run or the grand scheme of things. That's all I meant by that.

But what I asked you to do was point out ANYTHING good about refusing my beloved's happiness, short run, long run, any run.

In most churches I have been in; Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist, etc, I've never heard anything advocating " We should hurt gay people ",

But obviously you have been taught that it is OK to insult us, profoundly.

You cannot blame the Orthodox Church for everything that happens in Russian Federation.

I blame the Orthodox Church for what the Orthodox Church openly advocates.

My comparison was in the reasoning that just because we understand a sin and why someone does it, doesn't mean we can condemn the act any less.

If you understand why someone does a wrong thing, then you understand why it is wrong: it is because of the reasons why it is done that it is wrong in the first place. Are you trying to say that you can see why something is good, and nonetheless just say "it is wrong" out of a stubbornness that has no reason?

I bet you that several Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'is, etc., in this very forum have put up with **** like that or worse, and they aren't consistently going on and on about it.

I bet you are mistaken, but let's ask: how many people here have experienced religiously-motivated murder attempts?

That is only what makes it wrong? Not also, that the child is emotionally (and possibly physically) scarred for the rest of its life, beyond the motives of the offender? Is that not also a part of the moral analysis?

If the pedophile mistakenly thought that what he was doing would be good for the child, that would be dangerously delusional; it is the indifference of the pedophile to the child's welfare that makes it actually EVIL.
So, if you are trying to make some moral analysis that was in any way whatsoever relevant to the subject at hand (rather than, as it appeared to me although you deny it, just dragging in pedophilia irrelevantly for the purpose of being nasty), are you trying to claim that I or my beloved would be "scarred for the rest of our lives" if we make each other happy?

 

[Quahom1]

Q:

"Sex between heterosexuals not married" was not "fornication" in the Old Testament: it was MARRIAGE. (Unless it was kept secret: furtive sexuality is what was condemned as "whoredom"; a sexual relation publicly acknowledged was, simply a "marriage".)

Of course it is entirely different from any of those things, in that it does not do evil to anyone. If your moral sense had the basis Jesus tried to teach you, distinguishing between what does good and does evil to other people, this distinction would leap right out at you.


Like eating shellfish, or wearing clothes that have more than one kind of fiber in them? The real reason appears to be a need to have a group of people whom it is acceptable to look down on and kick.

All that we know for a fact is that primitive Middle Easterners said it, who were no more infallible than Middle Easterners of today, no more infallible than primitive peoples of any location on Earth, no more infallible even than modern-day Americans.

Russia:

But what I asked you to do was point out ANYTHING good about refusing my beloved's happiness, short run, long run, any run.

But obviously you have been taught that it is OK to insult us, profoundly.

I blame the Orthodox Church for what the Orthodox Church openly advocates.

If you understand why someone does a wrong thing, then you understand why it is wrong: it is because of the reasons why it is done that it is wrong in the first place. Are you trying to say that you can see why something is good, and nonetheless just say "it is wrong" out of a stubbornness that has no reason?

I bet you are mistaken, but let's ask: how many people here have experienced religiously-motivated murder attempts?

If the pedophile mistakenly thought that what he was doing would be good for the child, that would be dangerously delusional; it is the indifference of the pedophile to the child's welfare that makes it actually EVIL.
So, if you are trying to make some moral analysis that was in any way whatsoever relevant to the subject at hand (rather than, as it appeared to me although you deny it, just dragging in pedophilia irrelevantly for the purpose of being nasty), are you trying to claim that I or my beloved would be "scarred for the rest of our lives" if we make each other happy?

What is wrong with you? Touch a child, and pay a terrible price. That is the LAW. Bob.

As far as your own preferences...have at them. I could care less.

 

[madeinrussia89]

But what I asked you to do was point out ANYTHING good about refusing my beloved's happiness, short run, long run, any run.

What beloved? I thought you said you were celibate? Or is this a hypothetical beloved... Regardless, in a non-sexual context, there is nothing wrong with you caring about someone or wanting them to be happy and vice versa. In a sexual context, the church I belong to has an unwavering stance on homosexual sex, that it's a sin. I don't make the rules, here. That's just how it is and it's never going to change.

So, out of all honesty, in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, refusing say... homosexual sex (which would be refusing part of your beloved's happiness), in a short term/long term/etc, would be a good thing to do, because it would be avoiding sin.

But obviously you have been taught that it is OK to insult us, profoundly.

Well, I honestly didn't mean to.

I blame the Orthodox Church for what the Orthodox Church openly advocates.

So, there is a rally in Moscow against gay rights, and suddenly it's the Church's fault? Not the mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov who actually banned it, all on his own. Is the Russian Patriarch happy with his decision? Probably, but it's not like they made him or told him to do it, and they certainly don't advocate murder.

If you understand why someone does a wrong thing, then you understand why it is wrong: it is because of the reasons why it is done that it is wrong in the first place. Are you trying to say that you can see why something is good, and nonetheless just say "it is wrong" out of a stubbornness that has no reason?

No, I'm not saying "it's wrong" for with no reason.

I understand why the Church thinks homosexuality is wrong. I could quote works of the sacred tradition to explain why it is, but it wouldn't help. So, I see no reason to quote it, especially when it's just going to get shot down because they are either from a " dead book " or the views of " primitive middle easterners ".

If the pedophile mistakenly thought that what he was doing would be good for the child, that would be dangerously delusional; it is the indifference of the pedophile to the child's welfare that makes it actually EVIL.

What about the kid? Let's put the pedophile's reasons away for a moment, and think about the mental health of that child now that he or she has been molested by some sick individual. That isn't also evil to you? Only his reasons make it evil? Not the actual act itself?

(rather than, as it appeared to me although you deny it, just dragging in pedophilia irrelevantly for the purpose of being nasty), are you trying to claim that I or my beloved would be "scarred for the rest of our lives" if we make each other happy?

It wasn't for the purpose of being nasty, for the third time.

Consensual homosexual sex, from the point of the view of the Church, is against nature. Scarred for the rest of your lives...I don't know about that, but, that sin could possibly be bound to your soul for the rest of your life and into eternity.


But if you're okay with that or don't believe it is a sin at all despite whatever you're told, then, that's it.

 

[taijasi]

How did the question of pedophiles or pedophilia get into a discussion about someone standing up on the bus to speak about Jesus ... to begin with?

Perhaps that would tell us a great deal about the topic at hand, somehow? Was the man speaking of pedophilia, or was it more like my comparison, and we were just wondering what it would be like if he stood up and confessed that he was a pedophile? Or that he thought pedophilia was the path to salvation?

I think I missed something somewhere ...

 

[bob x]

"I don't make the rules, here. "
You ought to have a moral sense of your own, not just "Do whatever you are told". I believe that Jesus was, precisely, trying to tell you how to understand what is right and what is wrong, and telling you NOT to surrender your moral sense to authorities (in particular, not to the authority of whatever is written in the old books) who may just be perpetuating evils left over from the hard-heartedness of primitive times.

"refusing say... homosexual sex (which would be refusing part of your beloved's happiness), in a short term/long term/etc, would be a good thing to do, because it would be avoiding sin."
What IS sin? You seem to be making only a circular argument, that it is bad because it is bad, so it is good not to do what is bad.

"But obviously you have been taught that it is OK to insult us, profoundly.
Well, I honestly didn't mean to. "
Yet, the only thing you can think of to compare me to is a pedophile? Where do you think gay-bashing murderers get the notion from, that we are like pedophiles, except from "good Christians" who tell that to them?

"So, there is a rally in Moscow against gay rights, and suddenly it's the Church's fault? "
It was the Church that called for it. Who else's fault is it?

"Not the mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov who actually banned it, all on his own. "
It was hardly "on his own".

"it's not like they made him or told him to do it, and they certainly don't advocate murder. "
It's true the church no longer has the power to "make" the government do anything, but it is influential. I do not know the Orthodox Church's position, either current or historical, on actually killing us, but of course the Roman Church advocated burning us alive, and did so itself where it controlled the government.

"I could quote works of the sacred tradition to explain why it is, but it wouldn't help. So, I see no reason to quote it, especially when it's just going to get shot down because they are either from a " dead book " or the views of " primitive middle easterners ". "
That's right. I have no interest in hearing you quote from ancient works. Do you have ANY moral sense of your own?

"Let's put the pedophile's reasons away for a moment, and think about the mental health of that child now that he or she has been molested by some sick individual. That isn't also evil to you? "
Of course. But I recognize (as does the law) a distinction between knowingly doing evil and doing so in the grip of a delusion. A teacher told me the story of a student she once had, who was always a little "off", and ended up killing his little brother because the brother had been weeping piteously about being sent off to summer camp and didn't want to go, and he thought he was sparing his brother suffering. Of course he was committed to a mental institution for life. The teacher still sometimes visited him, and told me, "He has never ever realized what it is that he actually did-- and I hope to God he never does."
Now, when you said homosexuality and pedophilia are alike because it didn't matter whether or not someone is motivated to do harm to another, I took you to mean it didn't matter to you whether or not someone is actually DOING harm to another-- which is why I said you didn't even seem to understand why pedophilia is wrong in the first place. Then you clarify that you have in mind some hypothetical in which the pedophiliac's internal motives are good, although in fact the results of his action are gross harm to the child. Well, I do find it strange that you do not think the internal mental state is of any moral significance, particularly since Jesus specifically taught that the internal mental state, whether or not acted out, is what counts morally (he even used sex, specifically, as the example!).
But that is really a tangent here. Leaving aside the relevance or irrelevance of the motivations, you do agree that it matters whether or not someone is actually DOING harm to another? Then, why can't you address the topic at hand in such terms? If all I do is create joy for myself and those I love, there is no harm to others here-- unless you are saying that GOD is going to inflict suffering on us, in which case you are making God the evildoer.

"sin could possibly be bound to your soul for the rest of your life and into eternity. "
Joy could possibly be bound to my soul for the rest of my life and into eternity. Certainly if there is an afterlife I would wish to spend it with those I love.

Andrew, the thread got turned this way because I said that strangers pushing Christianity would be and has been rather repellent and frightening to me. You have to go back to pages 4 and 5.

 

[madeinrussia89]

"I don't make the rules, here. "
You ought to have a moral sense of your own, not just "Do whatever you are told". I believe that Jesus was, precisely, trying to tell you how to understand what is right and what is wrong, and telling you NOT to surrender your moral sense to authorities (in particular, not to the authority of whatever is written in the old books) who may just be perpetuating evils left over from the hard-heartedness of primitive times.

I do have a moral sense, and it comes from the Christianity I was brought up with. Not to surrender myself to say...God? Where do you think morality comes from? Secular society? Condemning a sin is not perpetuating evil. If I killed or harassed someone over it, sure.

"refusing say... homosexual sex (which would be refusing part of your beloved's happiness), in a short term/long term/etc, would be a good thing to do, because it would be avoiding sin."
What IS sin? You seem to be making only a circular argument, that it is bad because it is bad, so it is good not to do what is bad.

It is bad because it is against our nature, a perversion, and an abomination.

Lev. 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."

Just because we have the New Covenant doesn't mean we can flat out reject the rules set down by the Old Covenant. Just because while on this earth Jesus didn't say " Homosexuality is a sin " doesn't mean it isn't one. He didn't say " Hey pornography is a sin " either but it is.

Sinning is rejecting God, rejecting God's rules (his commandments), and denying why and how we were made.

"But obviously you have been taught that it is OK to insult us, profoundly.
Well, I honestly didn't mean to. "
Yet, the only thing you can think of to compare me to is a pedophile? Where do you think gay-bashing murderers get the notion from, that we are like pedophiles, except from "good Christians" who tell that to them?

Clearly murderers aren't following the other commandments in the first place whether we tell them something is a sin or not.

I wasn't trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. While both are sins, some sins are bigger than others.

"So, there is a rally in Moscow against gay rights, and suddenly it's the Church's fault? "
It was the Church that called for it. Who else's fault is it?

The Church called it a sin, they didn't call for a rally to intimidate/threaten people.

"Not the mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov who actually banned it, all on his own. "
It was hardly "on his own".

What? Do you think the Patriarch signed the document or pushed him into it? Hardly. Luzhkov does his own thing all the time. One minute he's thanking the Patriarch and the next he's wearing a yarmulke at a synagogue.

"it's not like they made him or told him to do it, and they certainly don't advocate murder. "
It's true the church no longer has the power to "make" the government do anything, but it is influential. I do not know the Orthodox Church's position, either current or historical, on actually killing us, but of course the Roman Church advocated burning us alive, and did so itself where it controlled the government.

The Orthodox Church does not advocate murder, of anyone. It had no inquistion (and it would be impossible to commit one under all the Church's laws) in contrast to the Roman Church.

"I could quote works of the sacred tradition to explain why it is, but it wouldn't help. So, I see no reason to quote it, especially when it's just going to get shot down because they are either from a " dead book " or the views of " primitive middle easterners ". "
That's right. I have no interest in hearing you quote from ancient works. Do you have ANY moral sense of your own?

Do I make up my own rules regardless of what God says? No. I'm not going to be judged by some morality I make up that has no basis in the Bible, I am going to be judged by God's rules.

"Let's put the pedophile's reasons away for a moment, and think about the mental health of that child now that he or she has been molested by some sick individual. That isn't also evil to you? "
Of course. But I recognize (as does the law) a distinction between knowingly doing evil and doing so in the grip of a delusion. A teacher told me the story of a student she once had, who was always a little "off", and ended up killing his little brother because the brother had been weeping piteously about being sent off to summer camp and didn't want to go, and he thought he was sparing his brother suffering. Of course he was committed to a mental institution for life. The teacher still sometimes visited him, and told me, "He has never ever realized what it is that he actually did-- and I hope to God he never does."

Just because someone don't know something is wrong doesn't make it any less wrong. Is that guy insane? Yes, but while that may be a reason...it isn't an excuse (which is also recognized by the law, regardless if in jail or mental hospital, criminals are still seperated from society), and may God have mercy.

Now, when you said homosexuality and pedophilia are alike because it didn't matter whether or not someone is motivated to do harm to another, I took you to mean it didn't matter to you whether or not someone is actually DOING harm to another-- which is why I said you didn't even seem to understand why pedophilia is wrong in the first place. Then you clarify that you have in mind some hypothetical in which the pedophiliac's internal motives are good, although in fact the results of his action are gross harm to the child. Well, I do find it strange that you do not think the internal mental state is of any moral significance, particularly since Jesus specifically taught that the internal mental state, whether or not acted out, is what counts morally (he even used sex, specifically, as the example!).

Thoughts count, but so do actions. It is wrong to think about doing it, but it is also wrong to commit it.

But that is really a tangent here. Leaving aside the relevance or irrelevance of the motivations, you do agree that it matters whether or not someone is actually DOING harm to another? Then, why can't you address the topic at hand in such terms? If all I do is create joy for myself and those I love, there is no harm to others here-- unless you are saying that GOD is going to inflict suffering on us, in which case you are making God the evildoer.

Yes, I do think it matters if someone is actually doing harm or not. God does not inflict suffering on you, mankind inflicts suffering on itself with distancing itself from God through sin.

"sin could possibly be bound to your soul for the rest of your life and into eternity. "
Joy could possibly be bound to my soul for the rest of my life and into eternity. Certainly if there is an afterlife I would wish to spend it with those I love.

It all depends if you are willing to confess and repent your sins. We all have to do it. I have to do it.

 

[bob x]

Not to surrender myself to say...God?

You are surrendering yourself to humans who are claiming to speak for God.

Where do you think morality comes from?

As a Buddhist, I derive the principle that you ought to treat others as if they were people just like yourself from the truth that, in fact, they are people just like yourself.

Condemning a sin is not perpetuating evil. If I killed or harassed someone over it, sure.

We do more than "harass" thieves: we lock them in cages. Locking a person in a cage is, in and of itself, doing them an evil, but it is right and proper to do such things, to prevent worse wrongs. If you condemn something as wrong, are you not saying it is right to take action against it?

You seem to be making only a circular argument, that it is bad because it is bad, so it is good not to do what is bad.
It is bad because it is against our nature

It is against your nature, but not against mine. It is in accord with the nature God gave me.
I am not impotent with women (although some homosexuals are), as I proved when I was younger: I just don't feel anything beyond the purely physical. I know of some who went ahead and got married, because they were taught that was what they were "supposed" to do, and they hoped they would come to feel what they just didn't; this is horribly, horribly unfair to the woman. Doing that is what I would call a grave "sin", as well as "going against my nature".

a perversion, and an abomination

Do you really think it right to insult me so profoundly, just for not being of the same nature as you? I can forgive the 3000-year-old Hebrews for talking in such a way, because they were just very ignorant. You should know better.

Lev. 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."

Leviticus then COMMANDS you to kill us.

Just because we have the New Covenant doesn't mean we can flat out reject the rules set down by the Old Covenant.

Look at Jesus setting aside the Sabbath rules; or at the old rule that a man who is tired of his wife can throw her out, for no reason except that "she no longer pleases him", a rule which Jesus specifically rejected as "hard-hearted" and wrong. Some things in the old book are wise and right, and some are just ignorant and wrong: Jesus tried to teach you what the principles are by which you can tell which are which.

Clearly murderers aren't following the other commandments in the first place whether we tell them something is a sin or not.

They don't consider themselves murderers, they consider themselves to be implementing God's laws. Remember, killing us is one of the things you are commanded to do.

I wasn't trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia

If you were not making any comparison or illustrating any point, then what were you doing?

It was the Church that called for it. Who else's fault is it?
The Church called it a sin, they didn't call for a rally to intimidate/threaten people.

My impression was that the Church called for doing whatever it took to prevent us from demonstrating. I may not have the story right.

Do I make up my own rules regardless of what God says?

Again, do you have this straight from God, or are you allowing some humans to take the place of God?
All I have straight from God is what is revealed in His creation, in particularly the way He created me. None of that is consistent with the notion that the old Middle Eastern books are infallible guides to what God is all about.

Yes, I do think it matters if someone is actually doing harm or not.

But apparently it doesn't matter enough to you for you to make it your actual basis for moral decisions.

It all depends if you are willing to confess and repent your sins.

I have no problem "confessing" anything I do. As for "repenting", my moral attitude is more focused on "atoning" or "making amends" for the wrongs that I do to others: you know, if you punch me in the nose, it's more important to say you're sorry to me than to God (who is not and cannot be injured), or to pay medical bills if there were any. Sometimes you cannot atone to the person injured, who may no longer be around, but you should do some compensating good: say, I recall with shame a time when I shoplifted something as a kid; I ought to pay back the shopkeeper, however long it has been, but that store isn't even there anymore; then perhaps I could buy some groceries from a similar local shopkeeper, and donate it to the poor. In this framework, how exactly would I "atone" for having given joy to someone? I should hunt down a guy that I pleasured, and hit him with a stick to "make up for it"?
But by "repent" I suppose you mean something more on the lines of telling God I am sorry. But, I don't feel bad about having given joy to others, and could not pretend that I do.

 

[Saltmeister]

How did the question of pedophiles or pedophilia get into a discussion about someone standing up on the bus to speak about Jesus ... to begin with?

Perhaps that would tell us a great deal about the topic at hand, somehow? Was the man speaking of pedophilia, or was it more like my comparison, and we were just wondering what it would be like if he stood up and confessed that he was a pedophile? Or that he thought pedophilia was the path to salvation?

I think I missed something somewhere ...

To be concise . . . It's become a discussion about whether Christianity can be a bad influence. Which is still . . . somewhat relevant.

The topic was originally a Christian asserting and expressing himself in public.

It evolved into . . . a question of how Christians asserting and expressing themselves in the public arena can be a bad thing. My interest here is to see where things can go from here. You can chime in if you want.

yeah, something did happen after the expulsion from the garden...a corrupted earth and man.

You are going into areas of the psychi that I am no expert nor even a novice student on. But I can say this. When I meet people who are gender uncertain (best way I can think to put it), I have always sensed an element of...sadness, that I don't normally sense in most other people.

1. We "normal people" must learn to be compassionate towards others, because we most often have even bigger faults to contend with then the others do.

2. The others must not allow a few to color the entirety of themselves (as a collective whole), by the hateful rantings and determiniation of said few, to change society to suit their own agenda.

History shows over and over again, if steps are not taken by both peoples to combat their own fears, or become complacent in allowing a few to dictate to the rest how things will be, then bad things happen, that hurt the whole of humanity.

I think at this point, Bob just wants to be understood. He says time and time again that its his nature not his choice. Sure, if he was a "chooser" then I suppose we could do @%&**$@$^^& to him (if you know what I mean). If he was a "chooser" he wouldn't be a "true homosexual" would he? True homosexuals can't choose. Bob says it's his nature and that he can't choose.

Let's give him understanding. He's at least taken the pains to discuss his own views on Scripture.

It is bad because it is against our nature, a perversion, and an abomination.

Lev. 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."

Just because we have the New Covenant doesn't mean we can flat out reject the rules set down by the Old Covenant. Just because while on this earth Jesus didn't say " Homosexuality is a sin " doesn't mean it isn't one. He didn't say " Hey pornography is a sin " either but it is.

Sinning is rejecting God, rejecting God's rules (his commandments), and denying why and how we were made.

Most of us assume that those who are homosexual choose to be that way. We assume they're all "choosers." But what if, indeed, as Bob says, some are born that way? It wouldn't be a choice. Sin always involves a choice, and where there is no choice, there can't be sin. Let's assume, hypothetically if we don't believe in the possibility, that you can, actually be born with a homosexual mind as part of your nature. What else can you do then? You can't be attracted to the opposite sex since you're not heterosexual. So what else can you do? You're stuck with what nature has given you.

Did Adam, after all, not eat the forbidden fruit? Aging, sickness, death and disease, blindness, deafness, etc. Why not homosexuality?

If you can be born blind or deaf, why not homosexual? How can you assume that homosexuality cannot be "natural?" Is it possible (in an extreme case) to have an apple tree grow oranges? It's possible if nature somehow gets the right DNA. If a tree has the right DNA, then yes, you'd have an apple tree growing oranges, and it would be natural. You would then say that Nature got it wrong.

Transsexuality and homosexuality could be a bit like that. Transsexuality is something we know for sure that occurs naturally. Some people get a sex change. Some don't. If homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon then we can't condemn it because the people don't choose it, they just get it.

Suppose, for example, that it's a naturally occuring mental disorder that affects a small fraction of the population. It would then hardly be a crime. Just a mental/physiological/psychological condition. If you say it's still a sin, you are then saying that justice and morality is not always about pain and damage caused to others but about following a bunch of rules.

Thoughts count, but so do actions. It is wrong to think about doing it, but it is also wrong to commit it.

Actions sure have consequences and they also have a cause. The same actions, though, may affect different people differently.

People shouldn't be judged just by the actions they take, but also the causes of such behaviour and their consequences. Individual actions are less important than the big picture: what role they play in our lives. Life is a story, not just a sequence of transactions.

What's God going to say at the end of our lives? Do we get a list of offences, or a story book?

What about our emotional needs, personal struggles and personal feelings? Surely that matters to God?

I believe what Bob is also trying to say is that homosexuality is not the act, but a condition.

 

[taijasi]

To be concise . . . It's become a discussion about whether Christianity can be a bad influence. Which is still . . . somewhat relevant.

The topic was originally a Christian asserting and expressing himself in public.

It evolved into . . . a question of how Christians asserting and expressing themselves in the public arena can be a bad thing. My interest here is to see where things can go from here. You can chime in if you want.

Despite the irony of this statement, given that we're on a discussion forum ...

... I have to come back to the adage that `Actions speak louder than words.'

Unfortunately, as we have seen - and as some seem to know firsthand - that can certainly go both ways.

As a believer in karma, and not in the arbitrary remission of sins, I feel certain we have a lot of balancing to do!

 

[Saltmeister]

Brian (Administrator) . . . if you're around, feel free to move some of the posts in this thread into the other thread: "Changing Sexual Orientation is Possible . . . "

. . . if possible.

 

[bob x]

Salty: I suppose I would rather be compared to the blind and deaf than to criminals, but it is still rather insulting. I don't feel love as a defect in me, but as a holy gift from God. I have a sense of beauty that you do not have! Rather than thinking that it is some kind of tragedy that people like me exist, a "fall" from God's plan, can you consider that maybe we are valuable to the human race just as we are, and that God wants humanity to include some like us? It is not necessary to the survival of a species that 100% of its members breed (in some cases, most extremely in cases like the bees and ants but also in pack-hunters like wolves and wild dogs, only a minority breed), and it is valuable to the species to have a diversity of abilities. If Michelangelo had been hetero, he would have painted the Sistine Chapel with a roller.

 

[Saltmeister]

Salty: I suppose I would rather be compared to the blind and deaf than to criminals, but it is still rather insulting. I don't feel love as a defect in me, but as a holy gift from God. I have a sense of beauty that you do not have! Rather than thinking that it is some kind of tragedy that people like me exist, a "fall" from God's plan, can you consider that maybe we are valuable to the human race just as we are, and that God wants humanity to include some like us? It is not necessary to the survival of a species that 100% of its members breed (in some cases, most extremely in cases like the bees and ants but also in pack-hunters like wolves and wild dogs, only a minority breed), and it is valuable to the species to have a diversity of abilities. If Michelangelo had been hetero, he would have painted the Sistine Chapel with a roller.

I was kind of suspecting, subconsciously, that the comparison to disease and disability had a dark side to it.

It must be ridiculous that we have to compare homosexuality to other "bad things" (ie. depression, mental illness, blindness, deafness, disability, murder and paedophilia), but I guess we're just trying to fit it into some kind of orderly view of the universe . . . and, we've got no better way of understanding it except by analogy. If I am to compare by analogy, comparison to transsexuality is probably the closest one can get.

My comparison to blindness and deafness wasn't to say you had a disability, but rather, that Nature gets it wrong. This was a response to the idea that heterosexuality was natural for everyone and homosexuality therefore unnatural. The other assumption, which was again to offer a view compatible to those others hold here, was that although God intended for us all to be homosexual, since the "Fall," Nature gave us not only bodies with disabilities (blindness, deafness), but "deviant" mind/body configurations (ie. transsexuality and homosexuality).

(I suppose the alternative word here to "disability" is "disorder.")

Disability: I would agree with you that homosexuality can't be considered a disability, as like heterosexuality, it is a function that your mind possesses. You'd have a disability if you were neither homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual and felt no attraction to anyone.

Disorder: I've got no problem with the idea that God might have intended some of us to be homosexual as a part of His design. I was just offering an explanation that might be compatible with those who saw homosexuality as not part of the initial design. I'd say it's quite possible.

Bible's Treatment of Homosexuality: I'd say the Bible records, it does not dictate. The Law and Gospel existed before their meaning was recorded. People had the Spirit of the Law and Spirit of the Gospel in them long before the Law and Gospel were written down. The Bible is there to remind us enough of the past so that we can inherit the Spirit as well.

Using analogy wasn't my initial approach. My initial point was that we must taken into account a person's emotional needs, personal problems and personal feelings. I started using analogy when the argument of "emotional needs" seemed insufficient, as for most that is just human weakness, at which point I started relating it to the Fall, which was some common ground most of us have here.

Nevertheless, I still see emotional needs (and other closely related influences) as a valid point:

Whatever mind we receive at birth dictates what is natural to us. The other thing that dictates "what is natural" is what you can expect from a person mentally and emotionally, given their life experiences at a particular point in their lives. Bad choices are a result of lack of experiences. As we see more, we make better choices. Society often sets standards for people that disregard possible struggles they may be facing in life. If we make bad choices, we often have to make excuses for them, or hide things from people. Often when that happens we are judged by society as rude, lacking in manners, inconsiderate, disrespectful, weak, disorganised, dishonest, etc. It's like we're breaking some moral code, a code we can't possibly follow because our personalities just haven't developed well enough to be able to conform. Right and wrong shouldn't be about getting everyone to follow the same rules. We have to deal with people on a case-by-case basis. Get personal with morality.

What I'd like to say from all this is that we've got to have realistic expectations of people. In many cases, breaking of this "moral code" that society sets for us is caused by deficiencies in personality. Emotional needs, personal problems and personal feelings should be taken into account. In your case, what would cause you to break the moral code society sets is not deficiency in personality, but sexual orientation. The difference is, if it's a part of your nature, it can't change as a result of accumulating life experiences.

Path of One's post in the other thread summed up the issue rather nicely. I think I can understand madeinrussia's view better now with belief (2): that it should still be a sin regardless. I'm not sure if she sees your sexuality as natural, though. You might try asking her again.

EDIT: btw, if my post doesn't make it evident, I forgot to say, I meant no disrespect in the comparison to the blind, deaf, disabled and those with disorders. I hope my view on "deviant" mind/body configurations isn't seen as unfavourable. If an apology is required, let this be my explicit expression of it. Could my acknowledgement of your ability to appreciate certain kinds of beauty be enough?

 

[bob x]

No problem, Salty!

 

[madeinrussia89]

You are surrendering yourself to humans who are claiming to speak for God.

Well, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and those humans were divinely inspired.

We do more than "harass" thieves: we lock them in cages. Locking a person in a cage is, in and of itself, doing them an evil, but it is right and proper to do such things, to prevent worse wrongs. If you condemn something as wrong, are you not saying it is right to take action against it?

Action doesn't always mean committing an evil to prevent worse things. There are all sorts of actions, good and bad.

It is against your nature, but not against mine. It is in accord with the nature God gave me.

In my religion, it is against human nature to be homosexual, no exceptions. We can agree to disagree?

I am not impotent with women (although some homosexuals are), as I proved when I was younger: I just don't feel anything beyond the purely physical. I know of some who went ahead and got married, because they were taught that was what they were "supposed" to do, and they hoped they would come to feel what they just didn't; this is horribly, horribly unfair to the woman. Doing that is what I would call a grave "sin", as well as "going against my nature".

I agree that marrying a woman in that situation would be a terribly unfair thing to do.

Do you really think it right to insult me so profoundly, just for not being of the same nature as you? I can forgive the 3000-year-old Hebrews for talking in such a way, because they were just very ignorant. You should know better.

The point is that in my faith homosexuality is not considered nature, it is considered a deviation. Those 3000 year old Hebrews were following God's rules given to Moses, if anything, not following them (in that time) would be a beyond stupid thing to do. That would be really asking for it. Being obedient to God is something I cannot condemn.

Leviticus then COMMANDS you to kill us.

Look at Jesus setting aside the Sabbath rules; or at the old rule that a man who is tired of his wife can throw her out, for no reason except that "she no longer pleases him", a rule which Jesus specifically rejected as "hard-hearted" and wrong. Some things in the old book are wise and right, and some are just ignorant and wrong: Jesus tried to teach you what the principles are by which you can tell which are which.

Jesus didn't come to destroy the Old Covenant, he came to fulfill it and bring the New. Do we still sacrifice lambs on the altar? No. Do we still kill homosexuals? No. These rules are no longer applied since we have had the New Covenant. But that doesn't mean a sin is no longer a sin. It's not like the Sabbath rules, these are the rules of human nature and they do not change in Christianity.

They don't consider themselves murderers, they consider themselves to be implementing God's laws. Remember, killing us is one of the things you are commanded to do.

Except that now we aren't called to do that with the New Covenant.

My impression was that the Church called for doing whatever it took to prevent us from demonstrating. I may not have the story right.

Well, the Church did not call for it.

Again, do you have this straight from God, or are you allowing some humans to take the place of God?

If rules are given to man from God, man does not replace God, and the only man that was 100% man and 100% God was and is Jesus Christ. The end.

All I have straight from God is what is revealed in His creation, in particularly the way He created me. None of that is consistent with the notion that the old Middle Eastern books are infallible guides to what God is all about.

Well, I guess that explains why you aren't a Christian then.

But apparently it doesn't matter enough to you for you to make it your actual basis for moral decisions.

The rules of mankind and not the divine do not make the basis for my moral decisions and they never will. Again, I'm not going to be judged by my own rules, I am going to be judged by God's.

I have no problem "confessing" anything I do. As for "repenting", my moral attitude is more focused on "atoning" or "making amends" for the wrongs that I do to others: you know, if you punch me in the nose, it's more important to say you're sorry to me than to God (who is not and cannot be injured), or to pay medical bills if there were any. Sometimes you cannot atone to the person injured, who may no longer be around, but you should do some compensating good: say, I recall with shame a time when I shoplifted something as a kid; I ought to pay back the shopkeeper, however long it has been, but that store isn't even there anymore; then perhaps I could buy some groceries from a similar local shopkeeper, and donate it to the poor. In this framework, how exactly would I "atone" for having given joy to someone? I should hunt down a guy that I pleasured, and hit him with a stick to "make up for it"?
But by "repent" I suppose you mean something more on the lines of telling God I am sorry. But, I don't feel bad about having given joy to others, and could not pretend that I do.

What do you think I think repenting is? Saying three hail mary's and being done with it?

I have to make up for my sins, I can't just go along on my happy way and not try to make amends. We clean our houses for guests but somehow people find it unacceptable sometimes to clean their souls for God. I confess what I have done, feel shame about doing it, make an honest effort not to do it again, and make up for it.

As far as what you should do to make up for a specific sin, the best advice you can get is from a priest that is blessed to hear confession.

 

[madeinrussia89]

Most of us assume that those who are homosexual choose to be that way. We assume they're all "choosers." But what if, indeed, as Bob says, some are born that way? It wouldn't be a choice. Sin always involves a choice, and where there is no choice, there can't be sin. Let's assume, hypothetically if we don't believe in the possibility, that you can, actually be born with a homosexual mind as part of your nature. What else can you do then? You can't be attracted to the opposite sex since you're not heterosexual. So what else can you do? You're stuck with what nature has given you.

Hypothetically, you could choose not to go that route just because it's " easy ".

Did Adam, after all, not eat the forbidden fruit? Aging, sickness, death and disease, blindness, deafness, etc. Why not homosexuality?

Aging, sickness, death, etc. were results from Adam and Eve's transgressions, not sins in and of themselves. Aging is not a sin (that would really suck), but in my faith, Homosexuality is.

If you can be born blind or deaf, why not homosexual? How can you assume that homosexuality cannot be "natural?" Is it possible (in an extreme case) to have an apple tree grow oranges? It's possible if nature somehow gets the right DNA. If a tree has the right DNA, then yes, you'd have an apple tree growing oranges, and it would be natural. You would then say that Nature got it wrong.

I assume it cannot be natural because my Church and the Bible confirm that it is not.

Transsexuality and homosexuality could be a bit like that. Transsexuality is something we know for sure that occurs naturally. Some people get a sex change. Some don't. If homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon then we can't condemn it because the people don't choose it, they just get it.

But it is condemnable, it is a sin. Does that mean go taunt people? No.

Suppose, for example, that it's a naturally occuring mental disorder that affects a small fraction of the population. It would then hardly be a crime. Just a mental/physiological/psychological condition. If you say it's still a sin, you are then saying that justice and morality is not always about pain and damage caused to others but about following a bunch of rules.

I don't consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

People shouldn't be judged just by the actions they take, but also the causes of such behaviour and their consequences. Individual actions are less important than the big picture: what role they play in our lives. Life is a story, not just a sequence of transactions.

People are judged by their faith and their actions. God knows and sees all, is merciful, and can break his own rules.

What's God going to say at the end of our lives? Do we get a list of offences, or a story book?

What about our emotional needs, personal struggles and personal feelings? Surely that matters to God?

Never said it didn't matter to God.

 

[17th Angel]

You are surrendering yourself to humans who are claiming to speak for God.

Speak for yourself, or they'll speak for you.

 

[Saltmeister]

Aging, sickness, death, etc. were results from Adam and Eve's transgressions, not sins in and of themselves. Aging is not a sin (that would really suck), but in my faith, Homosexuality is.

I think you misunderstood me there. I didn't say they were sin. I meant they were results of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. My question to you is, if aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are the "bad stuff that happens to God's creation" after the "fall," a result of eating the fruit, could homosexuality not be included? My point is, aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are beyond our control. Your point is that a homosexual is a "chooser" not someone born with the condition. I'm just asking you to reconsider based on my reasoning, assuming you haven't thought of seeing it this way before. Do you consider homosexuality a natural mindset? Not talking about the act here, but the mindset.

I assume it cannot be natural because my Church and the Bible confirm that it is not.

What do you regard as "natural?" It may be "unnatural" to procreate with two men or two women because they can't have sexual intercourse (need man-made medical technology), but it may not be "unnatural" to have the mindset. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible was talking about the outward, not the inward aspects of the phenomenon.

At this point I'm not arguing whether the outward is more important than the inward, at this point I'd be interested in whether you think the inward phenomenon of homosexuality in the mind is natural. I'm assuming you weren't making a distinction between "inward" and "outward" in the quote above. What would you say now if I was to quiz you about that distinction?

Remember that Jesus said that a person was guilty of adultery even before the act itself. The sin was in thinking about it. Did this not highlight the importance of thoughts over actions?

But it is condemnable, it is a sin. Does that mean go taunt people? No.

I didn't say anything about taunting people. The issue is whether, if you can accept the existence of transsexuals (bodily displaced heterosexuals), can you accept the existence of homosexuals (Nature giving us the wrong minds)?

I don't consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

As I said before, the Bible addressed the outward (observable), not the inward (hidden) phenomenon.

People are judged by their faith and their actions. God knows and sees all, is merciful, and can break his own rules.

My impression was that the mindset in Christianity was more important than actions. Actions only reflect our true attitudes half the time, maybe even less. Would God not be more interested in our true attitudes than our actions? If God was more interested in actions, why not just replace God with a man? Quite obviously man is good enough to be God.

Furthermore . . . from my perspective . . . Christianity isn't about following rules and judging people by rules. I believe it's more important to understand a person than to follow rules, as rules only reflect what we really think less than half the time. Was this not the Spirit of the Gospel? Paul said we are free from the Law implying that, "I can do anything, though not everything is beneficial." ie. Breaking the Ten Commandments is not beneficial.

 

[bob x]

In my religion, it is against human nature to be homosexual, no exceptions. We can agree to disagree?

I believe my nature to be "human", and you DISAGREE??? And you expect me to be fine with that???
Whoever taught you to think of my nature as subhuman and monstrous is an enemy of mine, at the profoundest of levels.

It's not like the Sabbath rules

On what basis do you say so? Both called for the death penalty, just like making images or other laws that you disregard. Leviticus puts homosexuality in the same category as shellfish-eating and fiber-mixing.
What is your basis for deciding which of the old laws you hold on to? Jesus gave you the criterion, but you don't put any importance on it.

Again, do you have this straight from God, or are you allowing some humans to take the place of God?
If rules are given to man from God

That's a mighty big IF there. All you know is that these humans claim they got their rules from God.

All I have straight from God is what is revealed in His creation, in particularly the way He created me. None of that is consistent with the notion that the old Middle Eastern books are infallible guides to what God is all about.
Well, I guess that explains why you aren't a Christian then.

It ought to be relevant to whether you are a Christian, at least a "Christian" of the particular type you are.

But apparently it doesn't matter enough to you for you to make it your actual basis for moral decisions.
The rules of mankind and not the divine do not make the basis for my moral decisions and they never will.

I was talking about the standard that JESUS gave. Why it is that Christians disregard that standard is a mystery to me. Basing your moral decisions on "whatever the authorities tell me" is the standard used by his crucifiers.

What do you think I think repenting is?

I have no idea.

I have to make up for my sins, I can't just go along on my happy way and not try to make amends.

I asked you: how, exactly, would I or anybody "make amends" for having given joy to others? By inflicting pain on them?

 

[madeinrussia89]

I think you misunderstood me there. I didn't say they were sin. I meant they were results of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. My question to you is, if aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are the "bad stuff that happens to God's creation" after the "fall," a result of eating the fruit, could homosexuality not be included? My point is, aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are beyond our control. Your point is that a homosexual is a "chooser" not someone born with the condition. I'm just asking you to reconsider based on my reasoning, assuming you haven't thought of seeing it this way before. Do you consider homosexuality a natural mindset? Not talking about the act here, but the mindset.

Well, you can choose to act or not to act, even though you said you weren't talking about that.... I'm not under the impression that people (for the most part) actively choose to have a homosexual mindset, but I'm not sure and that's not for me to decide. I don't know if homosexuality could be included with aging, sickness, etc, either because it hasn't been revealed as far as I'm concerned.

What do you regard as "natural?"

I regard opposite sex attraction to be natural.

At this point I'm not arguing whether the outward is more important than the inward, at this point I'd be interested in whether you think the inward phenomenon of homosexuality in the mind is natural. I'm assuming you weren't making a distinction between "inward" and "outward" in the quote above. What would you say now if I was to quiz you about that distinction?

No, I don't think the " inward phenomena " is natural either.

Remember that Jesus said that a person was guilty of adultery even before the act itself. The sin was in thinking about it. Did this not highlight the importance of thoughts over actions?

I don't think the thought of it is more important than the action, but that they are both equally important in terms of sin. Going with that, yes, just thinking about it would probably be a sin in and of itself.

I didn't say anything about taunting people. The issue is whether, if you can accept the existence of transsexuals (bodily displaced heterosexuals), can you accept the existence of homosexuals (Nature giving us the wrong minds)?

Oh, I know you didn't say anything about taunting, I was just trying to dispell any strange suspicions that people might come up with (like I'm on a mission to destroy people's lives?). By accept the existence (assuming that it could be a natural original state) do you mean do I think it's okay?

As I said before, the Bible addressed the outward (observable), not the inward (hidden) phenomenon.

Then again, the Bible wasn't meant to be an encyclopedia on sin, sinning, and aspects of sin. I don't think " hey, it's not in the Bible, that means it's a grey area " and then stop there.

My impression was that the mindset in Christianity was more important than actions. Actions only reflect our true attitudes half the time, maybe even less. Would God not be more interested in our true attitudes than our actions? If God was more interested in actions, why not just replace God with a man? Quite obviously man is good enough to be God.

But we aren't just judged by your faith, we are judged by your actions as well, so they're not exactly unimportant or trivial. Ideally your actions should reflect what is on the inside...

Furthermore . . . from my perspective . . . Christianity isn't about following rules and judging people by rules. I believe it's more important to understand a person than to follow rules, as rules only reflect what we really think less than half the time. Was this not the Spirit of the Gospel? Paul said we are free from the Law implying that, "I can do anything, though not everything is beneficial." ie. Breaking the Ten Commandments is not beneficial.

Well, you kind of have to follow the rules (ie. the commandments) in Christianity and anyone that says you don't have to follow them or at least try to follow them to the best of your ability (even if you screw up) is full of it.

When I say rules, I mean the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. We are not and never free from the Ten Commandments.

And Christianity isn't souly about the Last Judgment, no, but it's pretty epic and need not be discarded. The most important thing is to have a relationship with God and following Jesus Christ's teachings achieves that.

 

[bob x]

What do you regard as "natural?"

I regard opposite sex attraction to be natural.

That's your nature. It is also most people's nature. But it isn't mine. Yet I insist that I am still a human, no matter what you or your church says.

I was just trying to dispell any strange suspicions that people might come up with (like I'm on a mission to destroy people's lives?).

By spreading the ideas you do, you may end up destroying people's lives whether that is your intent or not.

Ideally your actions should reflect what is on the inside...

??? Whereas, my actions should not?

When I say rules, I mean the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus explicitly broke the "Commandments" on the Sabbath issue, and considered it right to do so.