Homosexuality and Religion

[Grantywanty]

Well Grantwanty that's true you can condition either way.
However you're wrong animals are just as conditioned as humans are. Their conditioning is societal and that the purpose some animals take to using homosexuality. It's never in a gentle manner it's used in the animal kingdom to enforce dominance. We know hetrosexuality can be used this way as well but it has a deeper meaning to progress the species.

You are wrong about several things here. 1) animals are vastly less conditioned than us and vastly more controlled by instinct and direct genetics. A quick thought about this should show you that you yourself know this. Many animals are capable of taking care of themselves within a year. Some animals from the moment they leave the egg, womb, etc. Compare this to the long childhood and education of human babies/children. 2) you are incorrect about homosexuality always being ungentle. You are confusing what you know about dominance interactions with a much wider phenomenon.

Personaly Grantwanty, No. I don't wish to have sex with men. And I see no reason to pursue the behavior either considering it inappropriate for the marriage arrangement. It wouldn't enrich my life and therefore would serve no logical purpose.

Knowing what I know why would I want to experience that?

But you think you could condition yourself to like that. You think you could make that choice since you assume others are doing this. See, that's the odd thing. I have no problem with homosexuals. However I know I could not choose to be more or only attracted to my sex.

That I sense is meant to be a slight toward God by means of a purposeful miscomprehension. That's okay Grantwanty. You may take whatever position you deem correct. But I must do the same. Knowing would the defining difference. Knowing that God is not responisble allows me address other concerns in life. That's another choice. It's a choice allows me to make a choice.

I am not slighting God. I am slighting beliefs based on an old book about what God supposedly wants. I think it is the ultimate hubris on your part to trust your judgement so much that you know that everything humans over time have decided to include and not include in that book is correctly chosen. You are basically stating that you personally have the insight to know that no mistakes have been made and that these many humans made no mistakes.

I think the problem is that we're looking for a way to restrict our choices. DNA, God did it. These are choices too. It's a choice that allows us the comfort to be what we have already become. If that is your choice then the choice was made for you when you relinquished to right to make a choice.

I can make many choices, ethical ones, for example. However I am a man attracted to women. I cannot choose to stop this. It is my nature.

I haven't made any determination on your sexuality.

Really? Then it was strange when you said:

I'm not attempting to force you to be hetrosexual. Only you could have that drive an motivation. I've dealt with a lot of people and animals and I've noticed with the right motivation you can do anything.

Far from it. And at least no less than for you to assume the reasoning is anti-gay in nature.

Of course it is anti-gay.

 

[Reiku]

Yes... well...


/// there you go...

 

[Grantywanty]

But from the get-go he sounds irrational, spouting what appears to be blatant untruths. How do you know his whole thesis isn't tinged with untruth?

Don't read the book then. Judge it beforehand.

So basically you're saying they cannot help their homosexual instincts.
This is what i don't understand.

They can repress them, they can closet themselves. They can deny who they are, which many of them used to do. But they cannot change who they are attracted to, just as you can't.

You take for granted that the act is without consequences, and that "God" personally punishes the actors for no good reason.
You insinuate that there will be no end to the consequences.

We are conditioned to see some things as perverse and others as not. Oral sex was seen as perverse by much of the Christian community and others, for a long time. That has changed.


You are lumping together the mere opinions of men and the universal order of things. They are not in the same category by any stretch of the imagination.

Firstly, let's not play this game. I have already stated my position with regard the suffering of ANY creature.
I can only assume that what happens is what is meant to happen, my opinon on laws cannot alter them, be they universal or societal.
In every scripture homosexuality is condemed. Why is that?

Well, it could be, for example, Jan that childbearing was seen as survial in the times these books were written. We were dealing often with tribes whose numbers made a great difference to the survival of the group. You are also inccorect about every scripture though Judaism and Islam and Christianity do have strong homophobic comments in them. There are others that do not. The books reflect cultural biases of the human beings who wrote them. Such as the acceptance of slavery. Thank God most Christians have moved past thinking slavery is OK

Well tell me, do you know if you had a previous life?
Do you know why you are here?
Do you have any contol over anything to do with your actual life, other than day to day existence?

I have answers to these questions. Your point?

How do you know?
By your own standard of what "a loving God" is?

I know with my heart. If the issue we are talking about is love.

Why do you assume that God personally intervenes in everyones life, where is the scriptoral evidence?

I never said that. I was talking about the afterlife as Christians tend to view it.

What if the act is abominable for real, but is not understood as such, despite the clear warning in scriptures? You must realise there are many activities we can take pleasure in, but is not good, but because we get pleasure from them, we choose to justify them so we can continue.

You trust that book. Which means you think you have the ability to recognize the word of God. You are making a very strong claim that includes the claim that everything in the Bible is correct and no humans made any errors over a long history where pieces were taken out and put in and various writers put down what they thought was the truth. You have decided that you know that no biases exist in the bible because of the culture or psychology or that they were men. You, Jan, are personally making a claim to having an incredible intuition. because most people would think that errors could come into such a text. Most books that length even written by fairly wise humans would have some errors, but you know that everything, including comments on homosexuality are correct. Wow.

And "all time" can only mean till the end of life, so to go to hell is just another state of being, not that you will be the same person (you are now) able to understand why you are there.
For all we know, this may be a hell, it certainly is for some souls.

This is generally not Christian interpretation. Certainly there are tendencies to hate the world. But would you care to give some scriptural back up for this. You are sounding like a heretic. A couple of hundred years ago other Christians might have killed you for making up stuff.

Owning slaves is not evil, how you treat them determines good or evil I would have thought.

So if I took you as my slave, and made you do all my menial tasks, but only used corporeal punishment on you as described in the OT, it would be OK. Do you really believe that, that slavery is not not evil?

WE have nothing more to talk about. I will put you on my ignore list so your posts are invisible. I have no respect for someone who thinks slavery is allright. Goodbye.

 

[Hapsburg]

Is being gay a sin in YOUR opinion?

No. Homosexuality, and the actions & feelings related to it, are not sinful.

In my philosophical view, which is a variation on Wiccan philosophy, all forms of sexuality have no inherent negative attachment, because sexual activity is part of life, and life itself is inherently beautiful and good.
Aesthetically and ethically, homosexuality is not wrong, and is just as right as heterosexuality or bisexuality.

 

[Orleander]

....all forms of sexuality have no inherent negative attachment, because sexual activity is part of life, and life itself is inherently beautiful and good.....

Yeah, gonna disagree with ya there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grantywanty,

Don't read the book then. Judge it beforehand.

I didn't judge it, I merely asked how you know the authors findings are not tinged with his irrational viewpoint.

They can repress them, they can closet themselves. They can deny who they are, which many of them used to do. But they cannot change who they are attracted to, just as you can't.

But I can change who I'm attracted to, which is why I don't understand their position.

We are conditioned to see some things as perverse and others as not. Oral sex was seen as perverse by much of the Christian community and others, for a long time. That has changed.

So by this logic, we would accept pedophilia, beastiality, and incest, if we were not conditioned. Somehow I don't think so.
Oral sex is still seen as perverse by folks, and it has nothing to do with christianity or religion, necessarily.

Well, it could be, for example, Jan that childbearing was seen as survial in the times these books were written.

Then why was adultery and promiscuity looked down upon?

We were dealing often with tribes whose numbers made a great difference to the survival of the group.

Homosexuality is common all over the world, wouldn't you say? Yet their is no let up in childbearing. Contraception, and feminism would be more suitable candidates for population decrease, IMO.

You are also inccorect about every scripture though Judaism and Islam and Christianity do have strong homophobic comments in them.

I take it we're discussing scriptures, not institutions.

There are others that do not.

I don't think any scripture contain homophobic comments, not that we can be sure about anyways. But I agree they can be interpreted in a way that creates homophobia, which is what I believe you are talking about.

The books reflect cultural biases of the human beings who wrote them. Such as the acceptance of slavery. Thank God most Christians have moved past thinking slavery is OK

slave;

1. somebody forced to work for another: somebody who is forced to work for somebody else for no payment and is regarded as the property of that person


2. dominated person: somebody who is dominated by somebody or by something


3. somebody accepting another's rule: somebody who meekly accepts being ruled by somebody else


4. very hard worker: somebody who works hard, in bad conditions, and for low pay

There is a lot more to "slave" than you seem to want think. Or are you using definition number 1 for a particular reason?

I have answers to these questions. Your point?

I need your answer to address my point.

I know with my heart. If the issue we are talking about is love.

So it is "by your own standard" then.

I never said that. I was talking about the afterlife as Christians tend to view it.

Pardon me, I thought we were using scriptures, not institutions.

You trust that book. Which means you think you have the ability to recognize the word of God.

Right. My turn.
You are on a emotional rollercoaster, and have a tendency to see thing through your own personal spectacles ignoring the reality of the situation.

What if the act is abominable for real, but is not understood as such, despite the clear warning in scriptures?

You are making a very strong claim that includes the claim that everything in the Bible is correct and......

I hope you can understand my point.

You, Jan, are personally making a claim to having an incredible intuition. because most people would think that errors could come into such a text.

If there were different attitudes with different scriptures, your point would be stronger, but no scripture accepts homosexuality as a practice.

This is generally not Christian interpretation.

What else could "for all time" mean to an individual.

Certainly there are tendencies to hate the world.

What's all this about? I don't hate the world.
Take those spectacles off, so you can see clearly what I am saying.

But would you care to give some scriptural back up for this.

I could, but it would contradict your general opinion of me.

You are sounding like a heretic. A couple of hundred years ago other Christians might have killed you for making up stuff.

So people can change if they really want to?

So if I took you as my slave, and made you do all my menial tasks, but only used corporeal punishment on you as described in the OT, it would be OK. Do you really believe that, that slavery is not not evil?

Look at the definitions I supplied, and you will realise that the only thing that is "evil" is when a person is "forced". Definition no.1.
You seem to be obessed with that understand of slave, only.

WE have nothing more to talk about. I will put you on my ignore list so your posts are invisible. I have no respect for someone who thinks slavery is allright. Goodbye.

I thought you were more reasonable than this.
Take care anyway.
Goodbye.

Jan.

 

[Grantywanty]

Saquist,
as a good Christian I hope you will talk to Jan Ardena. I must admit I can't. I cannot be polite to people who think slavery is OK and have placed her on my ignore list. I can not and will not read her posts anymore. Perhaps you could let her know that the vast majority of Christians no longer believe slavery is OK and do not justify slavery using old testament references any longer. I think it gives Christians a bad rep - or any group a bad rep - when one of its members acts an an apologist for slavery, even if she thinks there is a 'nice' version. I assume this would be one in like with the various rules set out in OT about excessive physical punishment of slaves - please note that word 'excessive' obviously leaving room for some corporal punishment directed at THE PEOPLE YOU OWN.
I hope you can show her the error of her ways in terms, Christian ones, that she will respect. Whatever our differences in regard to homosexuality I have a feeling you are thoroughly against slavery.

I hope my intuition is correct.
Grant.

 

[davewhite04]

Is being gay a sin in YOUR opinion?

I'm puzzled as to where the six or so votes came from.

What religion preaches that being gay is a sin?

 

[Saquist]

You are wrong about several things here. 1) animals are vastly less conditioned than us and vastly more controlled by instinct and direct genetics.

I don't agree that they're less conditionable. I find them very conditionable.

But you think you could condition yourself to like that. You think you could make that choice since you assume others are doing this. See, that's the odd thing. I have no problem with homosexuals. However I know I could not choose to be more or only attracted to my sex.

You chose not to have a choice. It's still a choice. You chose to believe that you don't have a choice. It's still a choice. Unless you've tride (which I don't endorse) How would you know? If you've never tried to escape a prison how would you know you couldn't do it?

I am not slighting God. I am slighting beliefs based on an old book about what God supposedly wants. I think it is the ultimate hubris on your part to trust your judgement so much that you know that everything humans over time have decided to include and not include in that book is correctly chosen. You are basically stating that you personally have the insight to know that no mistakes have been made and that these many humans made no mistakes.

Hubris huh....
If that's the difference from experience and no experience then...so bit it.

Really? Then it was strange when you said:

Not really. I understand your misunderstanding but I've made no determination as opposed to speculation.




Of course it is anti-gay.[/QUOTE]
I still do not believe so.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,
as a good Christian I hope you will talk to Jan Ardena. I must admit I can't. I cannot be polite to people who think slavery is OK and have placed her on my ignore list. I can not and will not read her posts anymore. Perhaps you could let her know that the vast majority of Christians no longer believe slavery is OK and do not justify slavery using old testament references any longer. .

Well I hope Jan Ardena knows that most Old Testement refrences were a much different type of slavery that could be bought out of. It was a bout money and debt.

For instant the Hebrew seritude was not like this.
Oh the other hands some bible idividuals had slave labors and masters in which the Master still pays the slave and most certianly didn't whip slaves to death as White Masters did in the south or for that matter...the Egytians.

 

[Fabio4all]

I think it is a sin, solely because in the garden of edan God said, "Go now, and be fruitful." You can't be fruitful (having fruit, metaphor for having children) if you're gay, I think it's not what god wanted.

 

[Orleander]

I think it is a sin, solely because in the garden of edan God said, "Go now, and be fruitful." You can't be fruitful (having fruit, metaphor for having children) if you're gay, I think it's not what god wanted.

And they did that by having sex with their kids. All for incest then are ya?

 

[visceral_instinct]

Grantywanty we all know that it is possible to condition the human mind. We generally think of this a negative description. Yet conditioning happens in the armed forces, in school in church, while you're watching the TV or listening to your parents.

Behavior is changable. That's a fact. Emotions are also changable. Some change what the like quite decisively between the ages of 19 and 25. (Women notably) but choice is also a very effective way to effect change.

I'm not attempting to force you to be hetrosexual. Only you could have that drive an motivation. I've dealt with a lot of people and animals and I've noticed with the right motivation you can do anything.

I've been watch this "intresting" argument for sometime now. The main ingredient to the kettle is choice. Why would you chose to like vanila over chocolate if you know you like vanila better? That's the real question.

Apple or Oranges
Sweet Potato or Pumkin Pie

You can only condition it so far. Are you straight? If so go try conditioning yourself to be gay. Then come and post in here and tell us that homosexuality can be chosen.

And really, why if it was a choice, would anyone choose to be gay. Who would make a choice that gets them vilified and possibly physically assaulted.

 

[davewhite04]

And they did that by having sex with their kids. All for incest then are ya?

How does evolution explain incest?

(There is no indication that Adam and Eve had sex with their kids, unless you have a biblical reference to backup this statement)

 

[SnakeLord]

There is no indication that Adam and Eve had sex with their kids, unless you have a biblical reference to backup this statement

Umm, I think you're aware that the indication is that if all people came from adam and eve then incest must have played a part, (not specifically between adam/eve and their children but between the children themselves).

You knew that, right?

 

[davewhite04]

Umm, I think you're aware that the indication is that if all people came from adam and eve then incest must have played a part, (not specifically between adam/eve and their children but between the children themselves).

You knew that, right?

Aye, it had to be this way.

So how does evolution explain it (if you believe in it)?

Was there a dozen missing links that were born at the same time?

 

[SnakeLord]

Aye, it had to be this way.

With a god, saying it "had to" seems a bit pointless. It didn't have to be any way, it can only be the way this god wanted it to be. He could have, if he wanted, have made hundreds of unrelated starter people. He didn't, he thought incest was the way to go.

So how does evolution explain it

Well, the question doesn't really work. However I should leave it to someone more versed on the subject to explan it in detail. Of course it isn't actually relevant to the thread.

 

[davewhite04]

With a god, saying it "had to" seems a bit pointless. It didn't have to be any way, it can only be the way this god wanted it to be. He could have, if he wanted, have made hundreds of unrelated starter people. He didn't, he thought incest was the way to go.



If I could answer the question I would but I'm not that well versed on the subject. I don't really see its relevance to this specific thread either.

He didn't start off with a bunch of unrelated starter people(well just Adam and Eve). You have admitted you know not of the answer from science so you may continue to attack incest when in reality it is the only answer science could conclude.

 

[davewhite04]

Snakelord,

You brought up incest, another attempt to derail a thread.

Edit: You and Orleander brought it up.

 

[SnakeLord]

You have admitted you know not of the answer from science so you may continue to attack incest when in reality it is the only answer science could conclude.

Wtf? I'm not attacking anything, I have no personal issues with someone that wants to sleep with a family member as long as that family member consents. People can do whatever they want with their bits as long as it doesn't involve me.

You brought up incest, another attempt to derail a thread

Wtf? I was answering your statements concerning incest lol...