Homosexulaity and the Bible

[786]

There are no such studies nor did I claim that there are any studies on how homosexuals do not have a Choice in ACTING homosexual.

786, I will most likely not bother with most of your posts from now on.

You know then there is no point in bringing it up because many people believe humans are evil by nature- so they don't give a damn if someone is homosexual- they care about the choices of action. I don't think you understand religious folk well enough to be debating these issues.... So quite frankly you citing 'science' of 'being' homosexual is pointless- but I'm sure you never realized this- and this is the point I wanted to make, which I now have.

Anyways I'm not interested in this debate, I just wanted to make a point... now you may proceed

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

You know then there is no point in bringing it up because many people believe humans are evil by nature- so they don't give a damn if someone is homosexual- they care about the choices of action.

I think it actually makes more sense not to speak about what other people do or do not give a damn about. What people say they give a damn about and what they do are too different things. Not simply because people lie, but also because people often are unwilling to notice feelings or thoughts they have that would make them hypocrits. It is very hard to know other minds.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

Unless you are making a claim to read minds.

I raise this issue because in my experience while Christians assert that they focus on the acts, at least some do judge the person regardless.

In any case, I assume, given the above, believe humans are evil by nature.

I don't think you understand religious folk well enough to be debating these issues.... So quite frankly you citing 'science' of 'being' homosexual is pointless- but I'm sure you never realized this- and this is the point I wanted to make, which I now have.

It is not pointless. For one Christians often assert that people are not born homosexuals. You may accept this, but many do not. Second, if homosexuals are born homosexuals, it raises issues of why God would make people a certain way such that they can never express the love they feel in the ways that feel natural to them. So the discussion does not simply end, even if the Christians in question, agree that homosexuality is innate.

Anyways I'm not interested in this debate, I just wanted to make a point... now you may proceed

You are not interested in the debate you participated in?

 

[786]

In any case, I assume, given the above, believe humans are evil by nature.

In my discussion about 'Original Sin' that is the idea that came across to me. Humans have an 'evil' nature, at least partly- the rest depends on actions.

It is not pointless. For one Christians often assert that people are not born homosexuals. You may accept this, but many do not. Second, if homosexuals are born homosexuals, it raises issues of why God would make people a certain way such that they can never express the love they feel in the ways that feel natural to them.

So why homosexual, what about other real diseases? Perhaps you should the turn discussion into why there are natural disasters?

You are not interested in the debate you participated in?

If I'm interested I usually read the discussion- I haven't read the exchanges between you and Neverfly. I happened to look and found something that I thought was based upon a partial understanding of religious folk- I respond not because its 'interesting' but because I was in favor of making a point to present a perspective which may be unknown to Neverfly

Anyhow you guys can continue the discussion, nevermind I even wrote anything-

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

In my discussion about 'Original Sin' that is the idea that came across to me. Humans have an 'evil' nature, at least partly- the rest depends on actions.

"Evil" is purely subjective. We tend to try to separate the good guys and the bad guys. However, considering our justifications of exterminating whatever bothers us and then showing G.I. Joe heroicly stop the "bad guy" from exterminating humans-- it is clear that the concepts of Evil and Good are pure human inventions based on our very own wants.

So why homosexual, what about other real diseases? Perhaps you should the turn discussion into why there are natural disasters?

It might point out a lack of divine intervention if so...
Either way, you are shifting the goal posts and introducing red herrings. As Usual.

Stick to the topic at hand and address: WHY would God make gays gay? Answer for a change instead of your standard obfuscation and dodging.

If I'm interested I usually read the discussion- I haven't read the exchanges between you and Neverfly. I happened to look and found something that I thought was based upon a partial understanding of religious folk- I respond not because its 'interesting' but because I was in favor of making a point to present a perspective which may be unknown to Neverfly

I had said that scientific evidence shows that gays don't have a choice in being gay. I then said that fundies would likely claim that even if they are born gay, they are to never act on it.

And then you posted asking me to provide cites showing that studies proved gays don't have a choice in ACTING gay.

Yeah- you made a point to Neverfly, alright. And to everyone else. But not the point that you wanted to make.

 

[786]

"Evil" is purely subjective. We tend to try to separate the good guys and the bad guys. However, considering our justifications of exterminating whatever bothers us and then showing G.I. Joe heroicly stop the "bad guy" from exterminating humans-- it is clear that the concepts of Evil and Good are pure human inventions based on our very own wants.

Although in the religious context good is 'God' and evil is everything that God is against.

Stick to the topic at hand and address: WHY would God make gays gay? Answer for a change instead of your standard obfuscation and dodging.

Why would God make a girl in a society that kills them at birth? Why would God send natural disasters?

I think the answer has been present for a long time- 'its all a test'- did anyone give that answer here- I'm not sure because I frankly am not interested in the discussion.

I had said that scientific evidence shows that gays don't have a choice in being gay. I then said that fundies would likely claim that even if they are born gay, they are to never act on it.

'likely'- Maybe you don't know the concept of 'evil nature' pre-dates the Scientific Revolution.

And then you posted asking me to provide cites showing that studies proved gays don't have a choice in ACTING gay.

Because you seem to not recognize that it wasn't a 'fundies' idea.

Yeah- you made a point to Neverfly, alright. And to everyone else. But not the point that you wanted to make.

You can label 'fundies' and what not- I made the point that the idea is not 'fundies' making it up because of your 'scientific discovery'.... It might sound stupid because I asked you the very thing which you said 'fundies' would ask- but the point was that its not 'fundies'. You implied that they will ask this as a response to this discovery so that they don't have to give up their belief. And my point was if you even knew the idea existed before this discovery.

Anyhow continue your discussion- no reason to waste time on a non-point (per you)....

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

Although in the religious context good is 'God' and evil is everything that God is against.

And if Neitschze is correct, my point stands valid

Why would God make a girl in a society that kills them at birth? Why would God send natural disasters?

Good questions. One might assume there is no God at all, and the invention was made simply to make people feel better about rough living and death.

I think the answer has been present for a long time- 'its all a test'- did anyone give that answer here- I'm not sure because I frankly am not interested in the discussion.

You sure seem interested.
Anyway... So tell me-- are dinosaurs a test too? The fact that life has been here BILLIONS of years before man?
I guess that's a test as well as all the other evidence that shows no hand of divine intervention. It's all there to test our faith in the lacking.

'likely'- Maybe you don't know the concept of 'evil nature' pre-dates the Scientific Revolution.

So do dragons. And leprechauns.

Because you seem to not recognize that it wasn't a 'fundies' idea.

Fundies stoicly claim it and that was enough certainty to use that example.

You can label 'fundies' and what not- I made the point that the idea is not 'fundies' making it up because of your 'scientific discovery'.... It might sound stupid because I asked you the very thing which you said 'fundies' would ask- but the point was that its not 'fundies'. You implied that they will ask this as a response to this discovery so that they don't have to give up their belief. And my point was if you even knew the idea existed before this discovery.

Whatever you just spewed made no sense and I won't bother with it. It strikes me as an attempt on your part to backpeddle and make it look as though you INTENDED to put your foot in your mouth.

Anyhow continue your discussion- no reason to waste time on a non-point (per you)....

You have said this three times. Participate or not- But don't act as though you don't want to and continue to do so.

 

[786]

You have said this three times. Participate or not- But don't act as though you don't want to and continue to do so.

I respond when I'm misunderstood or attacked....you still didn't get it though...but without responding to anything :wave: (happy)

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

I respond when I'm misunderstood or attacked....you still didn't get it though...but without responding to anything :wave: (happy)

Yes, it's abundantly clear how dense you think myself and others are.

 

[Michael]

So, for most people homosexuality, a genetic condition, is negatively stereotyped due to something that they were taught out of their religious book. I suppose this suggesrs that IF their religious book said homosexuality was God's path - perhaps 785 would have homosexual sex?

That's weird, Interesting, but weird. The power a book can have over a some people's lives ... weird.... meh...

Anyway, as we now know many of the underlying causes of homosexuality, and that these are innate, shouldn't the religious books be altered to reflect this new knowledge?

Ex: SAM is Muslim and is positive that the Qur'an supports a homosexual lifestyle. So, if rewriting it is a problem, then how about interpreting that part in the manner that SAM has? I'm sure she knows more than 99% of Muslim Imam's. Same thing for the Bible. The Bible is used by homosexual clergy, out with the OT in with the NT so to speak.

 

[Doreen]

In my discussion about 'Original Sin' that is the idea that came across to me. Humans have an 'evil' nature, at least partly- the rest depends on actions.

I don't have an evil nature. I have noticed how often the part of people that thinks they are evil seems to be the primary part of them that is evil. Evil people tend not to think they are evil. I think this idea that we are evil is a very damaging one.

So why homosexual, what about other real diseases? Perhaps you should the turn discussion into why there are natural disasters?

It is not a disease.

Perhaps you should the turn discussion into why there are natural disasters?

Perhaps you should flesh out the argument you are implying here.

 

[Neverfly]

Perhaps you should flesh out the argument you are implying here.

Good luck getting him to do that.

 

[Doreen]

Good luck getting him to do that.

Well, this is a huge step forward for me. I used to imagine a good version of the implicit argument and then respond to that. Wow, the amount of work I did for others.

 

[786]

Perhaps you should flesh out the argument you are implying here.

My original post was only to point out another perspective- it seemed to me that Neverfly was implying that 'fundies' will ask for evidence of 'acting' to escape this 'new discovery' while I just wanted to point out that there are those who have a fundamental understanding of humans having an 'evil nature'- so its not technically something they 'make up' to get out of arguments- its an old understanding.... You can go back to that response and see that I specifically said I was presenting a perspective which I thought was missing from Neverfly's implication- perhaps he didn't imply it but I certainly thought it was there- if not, then like I said just skip what I said.

As for my implication of what you're questioning- your question was-

'why God would make people a certain way such that they can never express the love they feel in the ways that feel natural to them.'

To cut it down to the important part-

'why God would make people a certain way'-

What about deformed babies? Orphans? What about children being born in the 'wrong faith'? This was my implication, that if you are going to question 'why this' then perhaps you can focus on the broader question of 'why' rather than just homosexuals. Because there are many cases where there is no 'equal' opportunity to 'express' things- especially people born in the wrong faith.

I don't think there is a study that shows that homosexuals are unable to feel attraction to the opposite sex- in a 'natural way'-

Anyhow both of you were having a discussion continue with that- I won't be posting from now cuz I feel I just disturbed your discussion now. Just know that my original intention was to provide an alternate perspective to what Neverfly said and you can read my original post again to verify that-

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

Just know that my original intention was to provide an alternate perspective to what Neverfly said and you can read my original post again to verify that-

And if one reads ALL of your posts, they will consistently see you offering the same "Alternate perspectives" that promote Theology again and again.

It seems to me that you do not simply want to offer "alternatives."
You want to promote Intelligent Design and theological arguments.

Take the above post for example: You point out how there are so many things that make no sense that "God Allows."
Well, I have an "alternative perspective" for ya: There is no God and that clearly explains all these mysterious allowances much more simply than the illogical and irrational machinations a believer might try to use to justify his faith with.
At least I'm honest.
Much more easily understood than beating around the bush and pretending to casually "help a Neverfly out" with alternatives.
After-all, I can offer "alternatives" that make the Giant Spaghetti Monster responsible.
They are NOT "Alternatives." They are products of Faith without evidence.

 

[Doreen]

'why God would make people a certain way such that they can never express the love they feel in the ways that feel natural to them.'

To cut it down to the important part-

'why God would make people a certain way'-

This is not quite the same question, though it is also a good one. In my question you have a specific kind of love that is desired, which in heterosexuals manifests in relation to the opposite sex. So it is not like being born with a harelip which makes certain physiological processes harder and is not a specific set of emotional/desire based tendencies, rather in homosexuality one loves the same sex romantically and sexually. This is just not a parallel to harelip chewing or talking.

But as far as your version.

What about deformed babies? Orphans? What about children being born in the 'wrong faith'?

'The wrong faith' is a very tricky concept for any religious person. If a Christian really believe, for example, that a Muslim girl, born in some Village in Afghanistan to Muslim parents who follows the tenets of the religion of the people she knows who treat her well and lovingly, should, if she dies at say 20, be on God's bad side, is a really strange, and I think evil concept. Let alone if she ends up in Hell for all time.

This was my implication, that if you are going to question 'why this' then perhaps you can focus on the broader question of 'why' rather than just homosexuals. Because there are many cases where there is no 'equal' opportunity to 'express' things- especially people born in the wrong faith.

The onus is not on me to show that homosexuality is evil, but for you to show that something natural, that occurs in animals and humans in significant percentages is evil or bad. If you can show me the victims or how the individual suffers (not caused by the hatred of others), then you are beginning to build a case. Otherwise I think it is simply that homosexuality was problematic for the tribes when the Bible was written. Children helped the community and the parents. I am not saying the whole Bible is not the word of God. I am saying , however, that portions are likely to have reflected the ideas held at that time by the people who thought they were getting all of God's message right.

I don't think there is a study that shows that homosexuals are unable to feel attraction to the opposite sex- in a 'natural way'-

I can only go by what they tell me and their descriptions fit very much my own for people of my sex.

 

[Neverfly]

I don't think there is a study that shows that homosexuals are unable to feel attraction to the opposite sex- in a 'natural way'-

I can only go by what they tell me and their descriptions fit very much my own for people of my sex.

Actually, there are many such studies that show that. But I won't bother googling them up for him.
I'd waste my time. No matter how many studies I'd throw, he'd find some way of claiming the opposite or throwing a straw man-- then claiming he was only trying to point out to poor, dense, ignorant Neverfly Alternative Perspectives that he was missing.

 

[786]

It seems to me that you do not simply want to offer "alternatives."
You want to promote Intelligent Design and theological arguments.

Actually reason being I'm discussing with a person who presents the other alternatives- the discussion would be uninteresting if we both presented the same view-

I recognize your alternatives.... perhaps if you presented my alternatives I wouldn't be posting in the first place- but I'm the only biased one around here. :shrug:

Anyhow instead of getting into a bitch fight, why don't you just concentrate on Doreen.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

I can only go by what they tell me and their descriptions fit very much my own for people of my sex.

I guess I disagree in terms of perspective of those studies- anyhow please continue your discussion with Neverfly.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Actually, there are many such studies that show that. But I won't bother googling them up for him.
I'd waste my time. No matter how many studies I'd throw, he'd find some way of claiming the opposite or throwing a straw man-- then claiming he was only trying to point out to poor, dense, ignorant Neverfly Alternative Perspectives that he was missing.

I'll find them myself if they exist.

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

I'll find them myself if they exist.

Then you will find them. Unless you try to claim you couldn't find any- forcing me to throw a slew of them in your face. Trust- You're better off looking on your own.

I guess I disagree in terms of perspective of those studies.

From what basis do you have to disagree other than a religious preference on your part?

anyhow please continue your discussion with Neverfly.

why don't you just concentrate on Doreen.

Cut it.

This is not an exclusive conversation between two members. You are introducing yet another red herring for people to read in your posts.
There are many members taking part in an open Internet Forum Discussion.