While I see the problem y’all are having with this, I feel compelled to add that the loving God of the sort we Christians profess, isn’t keen that babies are born with serious physical handicaps and ailments, but it happens.
AFAICT, it’s an intellectually consistent position to say that God sees it as good that children come into the world, even though, due to the existence of sin in the world, they often arrive in the world in less-than-perfect condition - and to include homosexuality as one of those imperfections.
I don’t personally hold that POV, but I don’t see the hole in the argument either.
cj, your friend agentfroot is right: you really don’t want those 2.4 kids. The .4 kid inevitably winds up bleeding all over the furniture.
I’m hoping you meant “sexual intercourse,” not activity, H4E. The Bible claims the former, but not the latter.
As Polycarp has pointed out, lust and sexual desire are not the same thing. The Bible does not suggest that sexual activity short of intercourse between unmarried people is forbidden.
Only because ‘your kind’ (if I may be so bold) insist on it.
Don’t worry, RT, I only put that example out there as an example for something which would be as unnatural for me as wanting to be straight would be for someone who is gay. Even if I had done things differently as a kid, there’s still almost no chance I’d wind up being conventional, and I’m among those who are grateful for it.
We’re looking at a Catch-22 here. If sexual intercourse outside of marriage is immoral and only a man and a woman are allowed to marry, then it’s immoral if homosexuals have sex. Also, according to His4Ever’s practice, thus I assume her views, heterosexuals can marry multiple times. Basically, that view imposes a restriction upon one set of the population which is not imposed on another. Celibate heterosexuals are rare, yet all homosexuals are expected to be celibate. That, I think, is what Polycarp and I, among others, object to and why after giving the matter a lot of thought and prayer, I do not think homosexuality is inherently immoral. Also, even if homosexuality is inherently immoral, that in no way justifies the cruelty shown to homosexuals, any more than opposition to abortion justifies calling someone a “baby killer”. Doing so as an insult is cruel. In fact, in my book, insulting anyone is cruel, thus sinful.
Excuse me. We seem to have gone far astray from the OT here, and I’m not sure I’m helping to bring it back. Anyway, rest assured, I’m not planning on going conventional on you folks anytime in the near future.
I agree with you, but here’s what His4ever said: “In my opinion, God names it [homosexuality] as a sin therefore He would not make anyone gay.” My response was that, by that logic, God would not make any of us since we all are sinners.
I’d reiterate what was pointed out above about the fallibility of the men who have translated the Bible from its original writing, but I know what your belief is - they were inspired by God, and therefore not fallible.
God gave us science as a tool (perhaps even to understand him better), but it is dismissed out-of-hand when it contradicts the Bible. I think he might have even given us an intelligence and reasoning ability for the same reason, but that also seems to be irrelevant when it suits you.
Actually, this is a rather recent development, but yes, this is the case.
Even the Catholics have said that it’s ok to be gay, you just can’t do those gay things; therefore, some of these programs are now focusing not on changing one’s sexual orientation (perhaps also capitulating to the facts revealed by psychological study), but rather on changing the behavior. Some focus on celibacy, and some focus on having sex with the opposite gender anyway (I suppose it’s a “grit your teeth and think of England” thing), because, as has been pointed out many, many times, the only recourses for a homosexual are those two things, and it all neatly fits into what the Bible says and what Christianity teaches.
So, to recap:
[ul][li]Being gay is ok[/li][li]Having sex with the same gender is not ok[/li][li]Being celibate is ok[/li][li]Forcing yourself to have sex with the opposite gender is ok[/ul][/li]
Never mind that this is repulsive, sickening, psychologically irresponsible, psychiatrically inadvisable, and, overall, a Bad Idea[sup]TM[/sup] - it’s what God says we’re supposed to do, right?
I’m not sure that even the fundamentalists claim that translators are infallible — just the original text. Of course, we don’t actually have any original text, and the thing that a lot of them call the word of God is a translation. But hey…
Nothing - if you’ve chosen it reasonably, freely and intelligently. To have it forced on you as the only viable alternative to “GOING TO HELL” is what’s sickening.
I’m not sure whether homosexual behaviour is a morally neutral act, but it’s not my job to police morals (other than my own) - I am pretty sure though, that homosexual behaviour is an ethically neutral act - there’s no victim or violation of consent.
I don’t really have a good answer for you there stpaulier; I get the impression that the religious anti-gays are acting against the outward expression of homosexuality because it is currently illegal or impractical to open up the heads of gays and scoop out their brains with a spoon.
His4ever, a request for clarification, please. I noticed earlier that you stated that you were inclined to state that persons of the same gender kissing each other on the mouth, with passion, was not acceptable. (Please correct me if this assessment is incorrect!) However, I am not clear on what your stance is on persons of opposite genders kissing each other on the mouth, with passion and outside of marriage.
I’m inclined to believe that if one is going to insist that homosexuals remain celibate, it should be permissible for them to engage in all sexual activity open to unmarried heterosexual couples, as little or as much as that may be.
Nothing, if it’s voluntary. Involuntary celibacy (which I would classify “have sex and you’re going to hell” as involuntary since there’s an element of duress) can cause severe anxiety, frustration, and emotional problems, however. (Actually, there are some experts who believe that prolonged periods of celibacy negatively affect the prostate as well, but to my knowledge their position hasn’t been conclusively proven.)
I thought I had addressed something like this before. I guess many can’t grasp what I’m saying. I don’t believe men kissing men or women kissing women is right because to me it’s still acting out homosexuality. How to put this, romance and eroticism is for males and females, not males and males and females and females in my view. Besides, passionate kissing leads to sexual desire and lust and if they’re passionately kissing and start lusting for sex then they’ve already done it in God’s eyes. In my humble opinion, God wouldn’t see this as being right. I just cannot equate normal male and female relationships with homosexual activity, sorry.
I don’t think that’s quite true; I think what is happening here is that people are completely understanding the substance of what you are saying, but having a very tough time understanding why you are saying it.
His, on behalf of all of us, of whatever stance, thank you for posting clearly your views, and not ascribing them to God (as many have seen your past posts on your understanding of Scripture as having done, whether or not you intended it).
If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying “my opinion is, passionate kissing leads to sex. God condemns sex between two men or between two women. Therefore He equally condemns behavior that will likely lead to sex of a sort He condemns, as well.” Is that correct?
Just for the record, I’m able to be empathic with a wide range of viewpoints, but I cannot see how you can bring yourself to worship a god who evinces such pettiness as to allow people whom He allegedly loves as much as you or me to come into a life where His commandments demand that they never know the human love that you have found with your third husband and that my wife and I share. If I were in the shoes of the gay people here, I’d see that stance as testimony to a god who “has it in for me” and demands I live a sterile, loveless, lonely life – and then has the effrontery to claim that this is Good News.
His4Ever, why should a gay person be at all interested in the god you witness for?
