Homosexuality, Immorality and Christianity
- Thread starter truth
- Start date
A straight man shall not pose as a lesbian for the sake of approval in the chatrooms of such, such is an abomination and punishable by disconnection!
The words of 1337 are those of the devil, and shall not fall upon the ears of the righteous!
(haha ok I'm bored, I need to go find something better to do.)
Truth,
If your basis of morality (what is right and wrong) is the alleged statements made by a fantasy then I see no value in such a debate. Your questions then are really a matter of Church dogma and not about what is right and wrong.
You are faced with an unfortunate dichotomy: You clearly do not want to appear judgmental and I applaud that, but you are also an adherent of a religion that is judgmental. If you believe what your religion tells you then you are necessarily judgmental and you cannot avoid that no matter what you say or deny.
Because rational people can see nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults which means common sense and reason outweigh obvious faults with bible teaching. What you are witnessing is the continuing rational evolution of an antiquated religion into something more aligned with modern wisdom.
Why? Is that your true point of view or just the view of your religion which you are blindly following? Can you think for yourself and determine why these activities could or might be wrong? But first you would have to define what is meant by right and wrong.
If your basis of morality (what is right and wrong) is the alleged statements made by a fantasy then I see no value in such a debate. Your questions then are really a matter of Church dogma and not about what is right and wrong.
In very practical terms you are indeed judging others because you are evaluating them based on what you believe and have been told. If you knowingly meet a homosexual you will immediately condemn them as immoral – that is in a very real sense an active judgment on your part.
You are faced with an unfortunate dichotomy: You clearly do not want to appear judgmental and I applaud that, but you are also an adherent of a religion that is judgmental. If you believe what your religion tells you then you are necessarily judgmental and you cannot avoid that no matter what you say or deny.
Firstly, the three items in the header have all one thing in common. They all mean the same thing! I published a thread a while back about an english shirtlifting bishop - this is exactly the same - it should NOT be allowed. Clergy, of whatever persuasion, should be people that the gen public can look up to, someone who is morally correct and therefore be in an unassailable position to deliver advice without recourse.
Simple. To my mind, in MY opinion - he is perverted ergo immoral. My opinion of the subject will not be swayed either. How can this person, if approached, give guidance on child abuse or suchlike when people know what he does albeit in private!!!
Red Devil,
But why couldn’t a homosexual be equally qualified to give advice on such matters as any heterosexual?
And why can’t a homosexual do that in the same way as any heterosexual? The problem doesn’t seem to be anything to do with homosexuals but entirely with those who have been conditioned to be bigots.
But his actions and lifestyle are loving and compassionate towards another human and does no harm to anyone, the same as the lifestyle of any heterosexual. I don’t see how you can consider such actions as immoral, wrong, or bad.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with child abuse. But as for sex then heterosexuals participate in sex as well. Sex is for pleasure. What do you have against sex? And we are assuming of course that he does participate in sex, which isn’t necessarily the case.
But why couldn’t a homosexual be equally qualified to give advice on such matters as any heterosexual?
MarcAC,
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Extract –
As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.
And here are some book reviews on “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” -
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dtw/reviews/books/Biological_Exuberance.html
http://cellar.usc.edu:9673/review/iglr/review.html?rec_id=48
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
Biological Exuberance is a groundbreaking and important book that explodes the pervasive myth that homosexuality is not commonly found in nature. Research has documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects and other animals worldwide, including instances of life-long homosexual bonding in species that show no evidence of heterosexual bonding for life. Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature and that in fact in some species the majority of individuals never have heterosexual intercourse in their lives.
Sure. Try these -
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Extract –
As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.
And here are some book reviews on “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” -
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dtw/reviews/books/Biological_Exuberance.html
http://cellar.usc.edu:9673/review/iglr/review.html?rec_id=48
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
Biological Exuberance is a groundbreaking and important book that explodes the pervasive myth that homosexuality is not commonly found in nature. Research has documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects and other animals worldwide, including instances of life-long homosexual bonding in species that show no evidence of heterosexual bonding for life. Bagemihl shows that the idea that animals engage in sexual activity simply for the sake of reproduction is an absurd distortion of nature and that in fact in some species the majority of individuals never have heterosexual intercourse in their lives.
But we also should base our morality just because it's in the Bible.
Regardless, the original comment was that homosexuality was 'unnatural'... which has been demonstrated to be wrong.
As for your last comment, life in the animal kingdom is based on making the best out of their situation. Humans do the same thing. The only difference is that humans seem to have a higher degree of guilt and community, which makes stealing and mudering not worth it.
Sorry to come into the topic so late... I was on vacation.
It seems to me that Christianity allows for quite some latitude as to which of the OT prohibitions it deems worthy of respecting. The condemnation or allowance of certain behaviors has changed spectacularly over the past two thousand years. These changes have largely been based upon what is acceptable in a larger cultural sense and has been heavily influenced by our growing understanding of the world. Resistance to these changes has been constant; in any period one may find the conservative protest against the 'immorality' of new interpretations yet resistance to change is a futile endeavor. To put a fine point to it; our understanding of homosexuality has grown and as our culture adjusts, religion must likewise adjust to our understanding.
Homosexuality is no longer considered deviant except by religious conservatives and other cultural backwaters. It is not a choice for most but a natural proclivity. Psychologically, it is considered 'normal' within the range of human behavior. And as it harms none the argument against it is particularly weak. As it does seem to be inborn and not a volition one might view a condemnation of homosexuality as a condemnation of God or at least no more reasonable than condemning someone who prefers blondes.
As to the 'forceful' condemnation and the strength of that stance as derived from the Bible it seems to have been directed primarily at temple prostitutes rather than 'natural' homosexuality. I'll leave you with this reference:
http://milepost1.com/~gaydad/FAQ/WHATBIBLESAYS.html
But in the end, religion must grow or die. Some might applaud this end but I feel that it is too early in our evolution; too few are ready to step beyond religion into personal awareness. So grow it must. A heliocentric solar system was once considered heresy, is the realization that homosexuality is 'natural' really more difficult to accept than rearrangement of the heavens?
~Raithere
No clearly the bible is not the base. Moses said that the Law was written already on the Israelites hearts. Sure the final details and punishment may have been exterior from themselves but we should be able to discern what is wrong.
I don't see what the point is. Murder, stealing all happen in the animal kingdom and could be considered natural. The argument that homosexuality is unnatural must presume some sort of natural plan given to us by God. Otherwise we could declare everything natural and nothing wrong.
Originally posted by okinrus
I don't see what the point is. Murder, stealing all happen in the animal kingdom and could be considered natural.
They are. Animals murder for need... as do people. People however have the 'need' to not feel guilty, not be caught, and be a part of society. This is why people do not murder. Not because of some obscure randomly assigned moral. However, this is a different topic altogether.
The argument that homosexuality is unnatural must presume some sort of natural plan given to us by God. Otherwise we could declare everything natural and nothing wrong.
Everything is natural, but some people in these arugments never understand that natural does not mean right, and unnatural does not mean wrong. Is technology 'wrong'? No. So why bring use "homosexuality is unnatural" as an arguement. Simply because you have no other reason that is logical and consistent, as none exists.
There is an old saying... "If you can't explain why you believe something, you shouldn't believe it". Outside of biblical references nobody has given a logical explaination of why they believe homosexuality is wrong.
I don't see what the point is. Murder, stealing all happen in the animal kingdom and could be considered natural.
They are. Animals murder for need... as do people. People however have the 'need' to not feel guilty, not be caught, and be a part of society. This is why people do not murder. Not because of some obscure randomly assigned moral. However, this is a different topic altogether.
The argument that homosexuality is unnatural must presume some sort of natural plan given to us by God. Otherwise we could declare everything natural and nothing wrong.
Everything is natural, but some people in these arugments never understand that natural does not mean right, and unnatural does not mean wrong. Is technology 'wrong'? No. So why bring use "homosexuality is unnatural" as an arguement. Simply because you have no other reason that is logical and consistent, as none exists.
There is an old saying... "If you can't explain why you believe something, you shouldn't believe it". Outside of biblical references nobody has given a logical explaination of why they believe homosexuality is wrong.
1. By this I presume you mean that although the bible says this or that, two thousand years of further evolution of the social structure allows for the rules to be bent (pardon the pun). Or to put it another way, mankind can read what he likes into the biblical rules.
2. As I am not a religious conservative I must be living in a cultural backwater as I strongly oppose this form of sexuality!! I would disagree with that viewpoint.
3. Religion is not growing, it is on its way out to be replaced by reality, in my opinion.