Gays and Church

[lukeskywalker1]

To the Christian the Bible is the foundation and basis for all morality. When I say Christians, I mean born again, on fire for Christ, in a realrelationship with Christ, Christians. I do not mean people who adhere to a religion and follow traditions. This is what seculars (non-christians) don't quite understand. Yes there has been a lot of trouble cause by "the church" and "christians' in the past. I am well read on many topics of Church history. Yes the name of Christ has been used for the cause of evil. You know what? I feel terrible that it has been so too.

 

Jesus is not about hate. Jesus is not about gay-bashing. Jesus is about loving your neighbors unconditionally, regardless of lifestyle choice.

 

 

Amaizing, ive been trying to say that for months. Thanks man

 

 

You cannot hide below the "hate the sin, love the sinner" umbrella forever, lukeskywalker1. You simply cannot. You hate gays, no matter what they do and don't do. And you just do not understand that you don't pick who to fall in love with more than Africans picked their skin colour.

 

He was mad, i realize i worded what i said wrong, not that it matters now :|

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Someone said that.. here or somewhere else.... they said the population wouldnt go up as fast, because they dont reproduce. Thats the point of my above statement, it doesnt do anything.

You're right - it doesn't do anything. It neither slows nor accelerates the population growth rate.

maybe it was offensive, but im saying using the example of homosexuality slowing the population growth isnt a good example. Im not saying we shouldnt do anything about the wars, famine and diseases! Im saying that the population sorts itself out!

"Sorts itself out" through things like war, famine, disease, homosexuality (according to you)... perhaps you'd like to add abortion doctor killings to the list?

Its not unquestionably true. It cant all be proven, i never said it could be. So it would be stupid of me to say it IS true. All i say is, i believe it is. That the conclusion we would reach, it cant be proven, nor disproven, and its a waste of time trying to do either. Its faith in the end. Yes, i believe it is true, without a doubt, but not the ONLY truth.

"It's not unquestionable true" + "it can't all be proven" = I believe it's all true. How does that make any sense? The conclusion you would reach is that a great deal more of it can be disproven than proven.

might i ask what evidence have you brought to the table concerning anything? true, a few experiments that "COULD" mean that your born homosexual. But it doesnt mean it IS.

It sure makes a stronger case than yours does. "Could" in this case is still open for debate, but there is some evidence. The problem is that unless science were to declare it 100% genetic, you still most likely wouldn't believe it (even if it was say, 99.9999% sure). There's mountains of evidence for evolution, but we know from other threads that you can ignore all that and still assert that just because evolution "COULD" have happened, doesn't mean that it did.

i agree with this. I dont think its the persons fault (even though it can be, but not always) IE: A heterosexual who just says they want to be gay, and then they are... I veiw them as sinners, no more no less. It is a sin according to the bible right? But then again, the bible doesnt say to treat sinners disrespectfully. I agree its wrong. Its wrong to bash someone for there own personall choices, that they can decide! Thats my view, its a sin, im part of that religion, it applies to me. The thread asked, i answered. Whether right or wrong, it asked for opinion (i think) Its right to a christian? Homosexuality is wrong, but not to people who dont follow the religion, as i stated earlier.

Show me the bible passage that says homosexuals are wrong. I've yet to see it. You say homosexuality is wrong, but that view (supposedly in the bible) is predicated on it being a choice. What if science proves that it's genetic? What if you can't choose not being homosexual any more than you can your eye color?

[Kurgan]

Sorry, this is in response to several posts, and I was planning to post this earlier, but I had computer troubles, so forgive me if these points are addressed better elsewhere. I didn't want to rewrite the entire thing....!

 

------------------------------------------

 

Well one common argument is how it relates to AIDs and certain other STD's.

 

It's been established that anal sex has a much greater chance of spreading the virus that causes AIDs than vaginal intercourse.

 

Of course, the argument doesn't really hold up anymore because the disease is spread through people having multiple partners, many of whom are bisexual, and through sharing of drug needles (often stolen from hospitals, or used by prostitutes who are addicted to IV drugs). And of course it is perfectly possible for heterosexual couples to enage in anal sex as well.

 

I do think that sexual promiscuity is an irresponsible thing to do and a major problem, but of course there are just as many if not more heterosexual people like that as there are homosexuals.

 

Being homosexual doesn't necessitate that a person be sexually promiscious, anymore than being hetereosexual necessitates this. Marriage in remedying this is also is a non-issue, because like any oath or vow made by a flawed human being, marriage vows can be easily broken a person decides to. Perhaps legal sanction to gay marriages would encourage more homosexuals to be monogamous, but at the same time many would not be, just as is the case with heterosexuals.

 

The other main argument of the harm that homosexuality does to society is in that it makes people depressed, confused, alienated, etc. But this problem seems to be coming from without, from societal pressure against it, rather than from within. If society as a whole taught that homosexuality was fine/normal/good whatever in so many words "accepted it", then this problem would theoretically disappear.

 

My whole point about homosexuality being a disorder is that IF it is indeed a disorder, whether medical (like diabetes or asthma) or psychological, why should effective treatments NOT be made available to those who wish to make use of them? I'm not saying force anybody to "convert" if they don't want to, and right now we don't know if an effective treatment could be made, but I think that option could be kept open (just like we have sex change operations and cosmetic surgery and that sort of thing for people who have problems with their bodies).

 

And finally, there's that homosexuals with regards to having families and raising children will not be as good for society because they cannot have both male and female role models in the home (it is important for children to have these when growing up, especially in their early years), because children model themselves on the lives they see their parents lead.

 

But of course there are also single parent families (gay or straight) and even heterosexual couples that may not be good parents (compared to some homosexual couples who might make better parents than these examples) so that isn't absolute either. Sadly many parents end up having their kids raised by daycare workers (who may or may not care about them at all and may not be there when needed) and this is not an issue of sexual orientation.

 

The argument that lack of procreation (without donation in the case of lesbians of course) would be bad doesn't hold up either because there are many heterosexual couples who are infertil and nobody argues that they shouldn't be allowed to stay married just because they can't have kids.

 

That and homosexual couples who adopt could help out a major problem because, at least in this country, it seems easier to have an abortion than to adopt (but there are millions of loving couples who would gladly adopt, they just have to wait a long time and go through a lot of hullaballoo to get there). Giving these orphans or "unwanted" children a loving home is better than them not having one.

 

I think perhaps some of the opposition to this idea (of homosexual couples adopting) might be that they think the kids will be "brought up gay." Of course if homosexuality is "nature" and not nurture as many gay rights groups say, then this would not be an issue. The kids might get made fun of because of their parents, but that's not the kid's fault, and that again would deal with education and tolerance built in the community over time.

 

So no, I guess for me for now, I can't think of a truly compelling and purely secular reason why homosexuality is "wrong," except to say that it serves no (known) useful purpose in nature. But then perhaps we will find one one day, with enough research...

 

 

Now if the human race were dwindling in numbers and our survival depended on having as many children was possible, I would argue against it (maybe that would explain why so many ancient tribal people's made laws against homosexuality?).

 

Sexual morality is one area where people have some pretty inflexible opinions I've found. The way to try to bridge those walls of entrenched opinon is usually to point out societal effects (such as the spread of STD's, unplanned pregnancies, breaking of the families, etc), since these are tangible effects that cross belief systems and philosophies. I may not be able to convince you that a certain behavior is right or wrong, but I may be able to convince you that it is "risky" or "harmful" and thus something to be regulated or avoided. In this case however, it seems I haven't brought to bear a very strong case for that.

 

When you ask *my* opinion on the matter you'll see that I've tried to look at it from a religious standpoint and a non-religious. Of course, as a religious person, that worldview still influences my opinion on the matter. Thus, I may feel that it is against what is the "right way to live" in my understanding, but this is not something I can force on somebody who doesn't share this worldview. That answer your question?

 

[update] And that's pretty much how it stands with me, without more conclusive evidence. As far as the genetic therapy might be, if somebody was to change my genes before birth to cure me of say diabetes or something like that, I would not look upon it as an attack on my freedom or of human diversity.

 

As far as disorders go (I know that homosexuality is no longer considered a psychological disorder by mental health professionals in the US but bear with me), one could ask if its right to cure people who suffer from various types of depression or mental illness. On the one hand, these people are suffering inside, but on the other, many of the world's greatest artists and performers have been "insane."

 

Anyway, the religious issue is a real sticking point on this topic. I would point out however that this thread began as an analysis of homosexuality in religious context, but a large portion of it has been taken up with secular debate about it (I don't blame people for being interested). From the outside looking in, it may be hard to understand why some religious people have a problem with it at all, which is what my earlier posts were trying to explain (perhaps unsuccessfully).

[CloseTheBlastDo]

As I stated before, there is not one legitimate ounce of conclusive evidence that homosexuals are genetically gay.

 

And as I have stated before, I agree. I also do not believe that there is a homosexual gene.

However, the evidence I have shown thus far clearly shows homosexuality as an inborn trait...

Is this a paradox then? No - because not ALL behavioural traits are determined by genetics alone.

 

A study was conducted on rats. Rats which were still developing in their mothers womb had testosterone introduced. (I can't remember if the testosterone was injected into the mother which then passed it onto her offspring, or whether the testosterone was introduced directly into the womb - I will endevour to find out this detail.)

 

Anyway - the end result was that ALL female rats produced from that litter tried to mount and mate other female rats as if they were male - i.e. they showed homosexual tendancies.

The important point is if testosterone had NOT been manually introduced, then the babies had only the normal chance of being homosexual. (i.e. very slim)

 

This clearly indicates that at least one way to induce homosexuality is to alter conditions within the womb (in this particular case - introduce extra levels of testosterone.)

 

This does not EXCLUDE genetics for the equation completely, but it certinaly means particular genetic 'conditions''are NOT nessesary for homosexuality to occur.

 

btw - they also studied the rat's brains in exactly the same way as the human brains. The results? Surprise surprise, there were also the same clear differences between the brains of rats who showed either homosexual or hetrosexual behaviour.

 

...still think this is all just a co-incidence that means nothing?!

 

I also know of quite a few former homosexuals (who were very active in that lifestyle) who have since changed their ways. They are happily married to members of the opposite sex, and happily have families.

 

Fine. I don't dispute that.

 

First of all, this works both ways. The are PLENTY of gay people in this world who will tell you that they are perfectly happy with their lifestyle - both those who have ALWAYS been homosexual, and those who have 'switched' so to speak. There may happen to be no-one on your particular street, or in your particular hometown who fits this bill - but this just means you need to look a bit further afield...

 

Secondly, you can fight against natural, inbuilt urges and still be happy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

e.g. Dieting involves going against the natural urge to eat. However, if your aim is to lose weight, then this of course is going to make you 'happy'...

 

Now for a person who is born blind, do they see their disability as a bad thing. No. Why would they?

 

Are you serious? Are you telling me that if a blind man (blind from birth) was given the option of having his sight 'corrected', he would say no?! Why do you think this?

 

And I'll point out the error in the analogy AGAIN, as I have several times before with similar analogies.

(And this is what I'm talking about when I used the term 'half-arsed'. Alright, I apologise, I should have been more polite. I'll describe it as a weak analogy.)

Blindness is a 'problem' - you can't SEE ANYTHING! You can't see where you are walking. You can't read. You can't watch TV. Blindness limits a person in a multitude of ways.

Now - how is a homosexual person LIMITED?

 

[Homosexuality] is an abnormality

 

AGAIN, please define abnormality and therefore show how homosexuality would fit into this defintiton.

 

Now here is my challenge to you. What is sin? You tell me what sin is. You may have a different word in mind than sin, but for sake of the argument, we will call it sin.

First Question: What would you label as sin?

 

Second question. What is your moral basis for this standard of sin? (ie, what is your justification for reckoning the actions and lifestyles you label as bad?)

 

To me, sin is the term used by religion to define 'wrong-doing'.

But since I don't believe in any religion, the term personally has no meaning for me -your correct.

I know it has meaning for you, and I respect that.

 

But I do have a moral basis. My moral basis is - well - it's of my own choosing. I don't have it dictated to me by any particular book, or my family or my friends or my nation. I have my OWN set of moral values that I construct myself by studing the evidence, trying my hardest to find the truth of any given matter and then simply deciding what I think is right and wrong. It's as simple as that really...

 

Perhaps most importantly, my moral stance is not rigid and static. If I am presented with new evidence whch seems to challenge my beliefs, I do not shy away from it. I study it thouroughly and if that then means I need to change my view on things - then so be it...

[jedispy]

I fail to see how bible verses and parables provide "conclusive" proof that homosexual is wrong or even sinful.

 

It is the moral standard by which Christians (and I understand that I'm probably the only Christian here) base everything. As the topic of this thread implies Christianity, then it has everything to do with it.

 

The bible was written by men (not God, or Jesus, or any other divine figure), and as such is opinionated and subject to bias.

 

So says you. Like I said, it's like describing the color red to a born blind man. That is why you don't understand.

 

So please, stop using religious material as a means of prooving your point. This goes for your "pornea" claim and the like.

 

LOL!! Then there is no purpose to the topic of this thread. All of you might as well just put in your last words and let it be that. The very nature of this thread implies Biblical principles. This is not simply a secular matter where someone is being discriminated against because of race, religion, or lifestyle. Can gay people be CEOs of major corporations? Of course they can. Can gay people be teachers, lawyers, doctors, authors, politicians, and police? Of course they can. To deny them this right is criminal. Like I said, THIS topic is different because it is not dealing with just any simple secular issue. Obviously you fail to see that, and for that I am deeply sorry.

 

If I am not able to present the Biblical principles of the matter, which are the basis of this entire issue, then my first ammendment right is forfeit. To start this thread regarding an issue that implies Biblical church matters, and then try to rationalize it without consulting what the Bible has to say is ludicrous <sp?>. You all are wasting your time if that is how you want to conduct this thread.

 

I am sorry for flaming just then. However I wanted to put this into perspective. Again if you want to see what I try to express about the issue of homosexuality, then refer to my post about the principles of the Bible, and the issue of sin.

 

Jedispy

Like I said before, I am not on some crusade to rid the world of gays. That is genocide. I am not on a quest to make it illegal. I used to be like that. I used to hate homosexuals, but Christ convicted me of my sin. Now do I have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle? I do not agree with it. I believe what the Bible says about it. Do I hate gay people? No no no....of course not. Not anymore. Gay people are what? PEOPLE. Who did Jesus die for? PEOPLE.

 

You all still seem to think that I have it in for gay people. I don't mind homosexual people. They live a lifestyle that I disagree with. What do I mean by "disagree with?"

 

*As I stated before, my standards of morality are based off what the Bible says, not how I feel about a topic.

*I disagree with a lot of things that people do. Very often such actions are not considered wrong by such people.

*For example I disagree with the common heterosexual lifestyle choice of having pre-marital sex.

*I disagree with the common heterosexual practice of looking at porn.

*I disagree with the common heterosexual practice of going to strip clubs.

*These are all pornea, and I disagree with the practices of the sin.

 

Do I hate people that have committed these acts? Of course don't. However, I will never encourage people to have pre-marital sex. I will never encourage people to go to strip bars. I will never encourage people to look at porn. I will never encourage people to live an active gay lifestyle. I don't hate them for it. Jesus doesn't hate them for it. This is what is meant by "hate the sin not the sinner."

 

Blindness is a 'problem' - you can't SEE ANYTHING! You can't see where you are walking. You can't read. You can't watch TV. Blindness limits a person in a multitude of ways.

Now - how is a homosexual person LIMITED?

 

[playing devil's advocate]

Why do you say blind people are limited? Why do you label blindness as a problem? They are limited by YOUR STANDARDS. Maybe people who were born blind don't have a problem with it. Maybe they have more atuned senses of touch, hearing, smell, and taste than you do. Just because you label it as a problem doesn't mean they make it so. Just playing a little "devil's advocate for you.[/playing devil's advocate] Just something for you to think about.

 

This reminds me. I would like to hear other people's bases of moral standads.

 

But I do have a moral basis. My moral basis is - well - it's of my own choosing. I don't have it dictated to me by any particular book, or my family or my friends or my nation. I have my OWN set of moral values that I construct myself by studing the evidence, trying my hardest to find the truth of any given matter and then simply deciding what I think is right and wrong. It's as simple as that really...

 

So what you are telling me is that you define what is right or wrong in your own book. Then what is your justification for defining what is right or wrong in society around you? Was the holocaust in WW2 wrong-doing? (your word, not mine) How about Saddam Hussein murdering thousands of Kerds <sp?> and Kuwaitis? How about Milosevik killing and exiling thousands of Albanians? How about abortion? How about illegal drug use? How about pornography? How about child pornography? How about insider trading in the stock markets? How about cheating on a test? How about shoplifting? How about stealing Cable TV? How about computer hacking? How about promising to pay a friend back, but never fulfilling the promise? What is your justification for defining "wrong-doing?"

 

My moral basis is...of my own choosing.

 

Judges 21:25

"In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."

 

*No standard for morality.

*Each person did as he saw fit.

*Let's just say that the book of Judges in the Old Testament is not a happy story.

 

What is your justification? How do you know what is right actually is right? I'm not just talking to one person here. I am talking to everyone reading this. What is your justification?

 

Jedispy

[Homuncul]

CloseTheBlastDo:

Are you serious? Are you telling me that if a blind man (blind from birth) was given the option of having his sight 'corrected', he would say no?! Why do you think this?

 

And I'll point out the error in the analogy AGAIN, as I have several times before with similar analogies.

(And this is what I'm talking about when I used the term 'half-arsed'. Alright, I apologise, I should have been more polite. I'll describe it as a weak analogy.)

Blindness is a 'problem' - you can't SEE ANYTHING! You can't see where you are walking. You can't read. You can't watch TV. Blindness limits a person in a multitude of ways.

Now - how is a homosexual person LIMITED?

 

I can't fully agree here. A blind man from birth doesn't even know what it is to see and while it is discribed to him as a marvelous thing by other people, he's probably at least half way thinks like this: a deaf saw once an invalid man with one leg and thought how difficult it must be to live like that. But then he forgets about himself completely being an invalid too. How it's really a problem for me if I don't count myself invalid, he says to himself. I got my own tricks to "hear things", furthermore I can see and smell much more than an avarage person can do. I talked with a deaf from birth man and he discribed me this situation.

 

It doesn't mean that if preposed the blind man would have refused, but that if he's not he wouldn't care much about it.

 

So it is only people that see a limitation here. Homosexuals may not realze why it is limiting. Still it is only for them to decide.

 

BTW I saw on the news yesterday a funny situation. In one church of Nizhniy Novgorod 2 gays wanted to get married and took a phographer from local "Comsomol truth" (which i what's left of an old famous socialist paper "of all times") as their witness. The news here was that the priest taking part in ceremony was "kick out of church". He himself says that these gays cheated on him and while he turned to look around they just put there rings on and proclaimed themselves husband and... well wife I guess. The photographer didn't miss his opportunity to shoot this scene. Gays themselves say that it was not so and that this priest was more than welcome to marry them (for a price of course). The article about it appeared in CT bashing the priest and the russian church itself. And of course the precident is obvious here that if the priest wasn't kicked out because of taking extra money (cauze it's yet not proven) than he was punished by the church for marring gays. The last ones were looking more than happy when they showed their love before canmeras.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

JediSpy:

No offense, but whether or not a person is gay is of no consequence to me. How is my life affected by the fact that you were attracted to a boy once?

Okay, if I didn't correctly attach it to my argument, I'll do it now:

 

I used my experience to strenghten my point that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. See, if it was, I would know how, when, and why I became straight. What do I mean 'when'? I mean that even today, I'm still not sure exactly when I turned straight. I'm dead serious. I remember being in middle school and being gay, and then in high school I fell in love a girl. I have no idea if the change happened overnight, trough a week, trough a month, or trough several months.

 

I believe I strenghten my point by using this argument, because if it was a self-conscious choice, I would have known at least how I did it.. which I do not. Neither do anyone I know who's had a preference change.

 

Now, this doesn't prove that it cannot be a self-conscious choice, or if it's like this to everyone. It does, however, prove that it's not a self-conscious choice to some or most people (which one of them it is I do not know;)).

 

Eagle.

 

PS:

No you are putting words into my mouth. I said every homosexual that I have met has been. I was not making a claim that all were. I pointing out that I don't have sufficient evidence in this matter.

I'm sorry. My bad.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by jedispy

It is the moral standard by which Christians (and I understand that I'm probably the only Christian here) base everything. As the topic of this thread implies Christianity, then it has everything to do with it.

It may be a moral standard, but that doesn't mean that what you believe is correct... it's just that it's what you believe. The truth may be different (this goes for me as well in case your perspective is proven).

So says you. Like I said, it's like describing the color red to a born blind man. That is why you don't understand.

Not just me. I'm curious as to what part of that fact you take offense to - the fact that it was written by men and not some divine being, or the fact that its views are opinionated and biased?

Why I don't understand? I hope you're not implying that I don't understand Christianity. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school until Junior High. So please don't assume that just because I don't agree with your perspective means I don't understand your position, or where you're coming from.

LOL!! Then there is no purpose to the topic of this thread. All of you might as well just put in your last words and let it be that. The very nature of this thread implies Biblical principles.

No, it involves a gay man being promoted to a position that many religious folk think should be reserved strictly for heterosexuals.

This is not simply a secular matter where someone is being discriminated against because of race, religion, or lifestyle.

It's not secular, that's true - it involves Christian politics. However, he is being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

Can gay people be CEOs of major corporations? Of course they can. Can gay people be teachers, lawyers, doctors, authors, politicians, and police? Of course they can. To deny them this right is criminal.

But apparently denying them the right to be a bishop is not criminal, is this what you're saying?

Like I said, THIS topic is different because it is not dealing with just any simple secular issue. Obviously you fail to see that, and for that I am deeply sorry.

Please stop slinging accusations my way. You may believe I fail to see the issue, but you are incorrect in this assumption (that's 0 for 2).

You're lumping homosexuality in with pornea because you believe the bible says it's a sin. Where does it explicitly say in the bible homosexuality is a sin? Some verses have been interpreted incorrectly to imply that it is a sin, but the only passage I can think of that even comes close is from a book in the bible that Christians no longer pay any attention to.

If I am not able to present the Biblical principles of the matter, which are the basis of this entire issue, then my first ammendment right is forfeit. To start this thread regarding an issue that implies Biblical church matters, and then try to rationalize it without consulting what the Bible has to say is ludicrous <sp?>. You all are wasting your time if that is how you want to conduct this thread.

You can present all the Biblical principles you want - but as the bible is not a good source for accurate information (and as such not the basis for a strong argument) no one will take it seriously except other Christians (like lukeskywalker1 and perhaps Kurgan). If you want to make the case that homosexuality is unnatural, prove it with concrete examples, not hearsay or the rantings of men from a 2000 year old fairytale.

Again if you want to see what I try to express about the issue of homosexuality, then refer to my post about the principles of the Bible, and the issue of sin.

This is predicated entirely on it even being a sin at all, something I've yet to see mentioned in the bible.

You all still seem to think that I have it in for gay people. I don't mind homosexual people. They live a lifestyle that I disagree with.

Then disagree with the appointment of a gay bishop, and just move on.

*As I stated before, my standards of morality are based off what the Bible says, not how I feel about a topic.

Translation: I don't think for myself, I unquestioningly regurgitate information I read written by bigots 2000 years ago.

Why do you say blind people are limited? Why do you label blindness as a problem? They are limited by YOUR STANDARDS. Maybe people who were born blind don't have a problem with it. Maybe they have more atuned senses of touch, hearing, smell, and taste than you do. Just because you label it as a problem doesn't mean they make it so. Just playing a little "devil's advocate for you.[/playing devil's advocate] Just something for you to think about.

Blindness isn't a problem - it's a disability. Blind people simply cannot do some of the things that people with sight can. Quite often their other senses are more atuned. But if you were to offer to enhance their life by removing that disability, don't you think they'd want it done?

This reminds me. I would like to hear other people's bases of moral standads.

Mine are simple: treat people the way you would like to be treated (with respect). Do that and everything else works itself out.

Judges 21:25

"In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."

In those days there was no Israel. The Jews were a nomadic desert people who traveled in tribes, and when settled continued to live in tribes. There was a tribunal rule that did set down rules and laws. It would be many years before there finally was an Israel at all.

*No standard for morality.

*Each person did as he saw fit.

*Let's just say that the book of Judges in the Old Testament is not a happy story.

And just like today, even with many different standards of morality there are those that choose not to obey them and do as they see fit. People don't need standards for morality. They should be created independently, as everyone's morals are different.

For example, I don't consider homosexuality to be immoral. I believe you do (you consider it a sin, so I think this is a fair assumption). So how does a "standard" set of morals benefit us both? One of us would have to compromise our individual morals to bow to such a standard.

What is your justification? How do you know what is right actually is right? I'm not just talking to one person here. I am talking to everyone reading this. What is your justification?

What's "right" is a subjective term, since right and wrong are man made concepts. What's "right" to me may be "wrong" to someone else. I love a good hamburger. This is completely wrong to a Hindu, who believe the cow is sacred and should never be killed, let alone eaten.

In the end, no one can know what is "right" for everyone. It is an ideal, a way of categorizing our actions or the actions of others based on what we perceive to be "good" or "bad" (more man-made concepts).

[Kurgan]

Incidentally, I think that some people are trying to hijack this thread.

 

If you say religion has no place in a reasonable debate, then you should never have posted, because this was (look at the title again) "Gays and Church" and was about homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

 

If you don't believe in God, the Bible or Christian teaching, what do you say to a homosexual Christian or a Christian trying to decide the role of homosexuals in his church?

 

"Leave, quit, God doesn't exist!" ?

 

Seriously what have we accomplished here? All we've established is that secular non-Christians don't have a problem with homosexuality.

 

Rather than show reasons why a Christian should accept homosexuality, all we're getting is that "the bible is biased, Christianity isn't proven."

 

Maybe we should end this debate and start a new one entitled "Why Christians are wrong to oppose homosexuality."

 

At least it would be more apt to where this discussion is going...

 

 

And finally I'd like to point out that there IS room for a debate in context, because in the 30,000+ Christian denominations there is an entire spectruum of opinion about homosexuality from pure acceptance on the one end and pure hatred on the other.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Incidentally, I think that some people are trying to hijack this thread.

 

And finally I'd like to point out that there IS room for a debate in context, because in the 30,000+ Christian denominations there is an entire spectruum of opinion about homosexuality from pure acceptance on the one end and pure hatred on the other.

 

Good point, and I agree... I was considering a split the other day... and so here it is.

 

Kurgan raised a very valid point about the thread being hijacked. If you want to post about the appropriateness of homosexuality in church or within christianity, this is the appropriate thread.

 

If you are concerned about whether homosexuality is a choice or not, please choose the new thread.

 

I'm sure someone will wish their post(s) was in the other thread, but I tried to be smart about where they should go as well as consider the flow of conversation. Kurgan made a double post by accident that I forgot to delete the other day, so I placed one in each thread

 

Most of jedispy's posts and the answering posts are in the Church/Gays thread, since he seemed to be focused on the topic from a religion/christian point of view.

 

If the post was regarding genetics, inborn, or choices (or lack of them), they're in the new thread... but perhaps with an exception or two if they were relavent to another post in this thread.

 

Cheers

 

Big Daddy Skin

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I believe the reason why the thread was derailed is that we got into whether or not homosexuality is a conscious choice.

 

If it is, and we have estabilished pretty much that the change is not (not as conscious as snapping your fingers at least), then that would mean the church can use this as an argument on why to exclude gays.

 

Now, back to whether or not gays should be allowed in church:

I don't see why not. Yes, the bible may speak against homosexuality, but it's also against all these other things that bishops, priests, and all those engage in. Lying, stealing, and so on and so fourth. If you have to insist that homosexuality is a sin, accept it as a sin that God will forgive you for when you go to Heaven.

 

Bottom line: According to law, you cannot discriminate based on orientation when choosing who to hire. Religion doesn't matter, your preferences do not matter, and your political stance doesn't matter, for under the law everyone's supposed to be equal.

 

The church cannot shut out homosexuals based on religion more than a store owner could declare himself religious, state that he interprees the bible as a racist code and fire all his Asian-, Latin- and African-American workers. If organization A can't discriminate, organization B can't discriminate.

 

-Eagle.

[Kurgan]

I'm sure someone will wish their post(s) was in the other thread, but I tried to be smart about where they should go as well as consider the flow of conversation. Kurgan made a double post by accident that I forgot to delete the other day, so I placed one in each thread

 

Thank you, I have been having a lot of those lately... I blame all the server activity from the JA hype. ; p

 

Anyway....

 

Actually discrimination is perfectly legal, and if it wasn't, no business could survive, they have to be discriminating in their hiring practices, or they will have to hire the first people who apply.

 

Would you hire or keep an employee who was continually late for work, incompetent, had a sloppy appearance despite warnings, or fought with co-workers? Some form of discrimination has to take place or else nobody will get anything done. It's called discipline.

 

What you're really saying is that certain "protected classes" are recognized by law as such that businesses are not legally allowed to "discriminate on the basis of."

 

The old joke is that midgets should sign up for the NBA to see if all discrimination is dead or 85 year old women should sign up to appear in "Playboy." =)

 

So this man's homosexuality would not exclude him from the Bishop's office. There have already been gay clergy in the church.

 

Rather, it is the fact that he's in an ongoing sexual relationship with a person he lives with that he is not married to, and shows no sign of repenting of his action.

 

Yes, sins can be forgiven, but if a person doesn't even try, he's not being a good role model for his congregation... I think that's the bottom line in all this.

 

Yes, there is homophobia (I hate the word, but you get the point) involved, but clearly, he's stretching the rules to the breaking point.

 

This reminds me of the time back when I was younger, in our local Catholic church, where a priest (and we all thought he was a really nice guy) was dismissed from his post because he was an alcoholic and it was interfering with his duties at the parish.

 

I didn't get the full story and I don't know what he's doing now, but I guess the thing was he had gone to seminary and he had the problem then, but he "recovered" for awhile, then had his relapse while he was on the job. Sad, really.

 

 

Homosexuality as a religious issue is a very challenging one, because if the gay rights activists are correct, then it's a permanent condition, and so what is a person to do? Surely God will forgive them if they repent, but they'll be repenting their entire lives...

 

Though, most honest Christians will admit that this is something we all have to do, albeit for different reasons. The important thing is to try... but when we fail, to admit our fault and try to make amends.

 

I cannot know what is in this man's heart, but the message he's sending is that either he doesn't consider it a sin at all (in which case he's at odds with church teaching) or else he knows its a sin and simply chooses to break it, and thus isn't a good role model for his congregation in the role as Bishop (and a Bishop has a lot more responsibility and people looking up to him than a priest or deacon or other lower level clergyperson).

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Thank you, I have been having a lot of those lately... I blame all the server activity from the JA hype.

 

Heh.. yeah, I've seen quite a few of these lately (things appear to be running smooth today, though). I just delete one of the dupes... I've had to delete my own as well.

 

So this man's homosexuality would not exclude him from the Bishop's office. There have already been gay clergy in the church.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Rather, it is the fact that he's in an ongoing sexual relationship with a person he lives with that he is not married to, and shows no sign of repenting of his action.

 

I cannot disagree with that. When the thread started, I had made the assumption that he would have to take a vow of celibacy as with the Catholic church.

 

Since you pointed out his promiscuity and relationship out of wedlock, I have to agree that he should not be a bishop or other church leader. Not following the rules is a sign of poor leadership. I don't agree with the church's stance on homosexual unions perhaps, but as long as they have the rule, he shouldn't be the exception.

[Kurgan]

Well, technically promiscuity is incorrect, because (at least from what I gathered) his is in a monogamus relationship with this man (since they have an adopted daughter who is an adult).

 

But yes, the big problem is that he's not married (and so far he can't get married to his partner with the sanction of the Church at this time).

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Actually discrimination is perfectly legal, and if it wasn't, no business could survive, they have to be discriminating in their hiring practices, or they will have to hire the first people who apply.

 

I agree with Kurgan on this. If the church officially brands homosexuality as a 'sin', then they have the right to not appoint a bishop who is a practising homosexual.

 

The only question then is - is it right for the church to brand homosexuality as a sin in the first place. I agree that they 'have' the right - but is it 'right'? I think my opinion on this point is well known, so I won't bother going on...

 

At the end of the day, while I personally believe it is a good thing they did not stop him becoming a bishop, I can see why some members are upset about it...

[jedispy]

Around and around it goes.

 

Originally posted by Eldritch

It may be a moral standard, but that doesn't mean that what you believe is correct... it's just that it's what you believe. The truth may be different (this goes for me as well in case your perspective is proven).

 

Look at it this way, the truth is not relative. The truth is not subjective. There is a correct answer, and not everyone who believes they are correct really are correct. Someone must be right, and someone must be wrong.

My question is how do you find any justification in what you label as good or evil?

 

I hope you're not implying that I don't understand Christianity. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school until Junior High. So please don't assume that just because I don't agree with your perspective means I don't understand your position, or where you're coming from.

I mean no offense, so please don't take this the wrong way, but it is clear that you don't understand it. You grew up Catholic. Um....o.k. So you grew up in a religious institution where you were told what to believe before you were able to seek the answer for yourself. So....that is Christianity? Is that what you think it really means to be saved? Hrm....interesting that you feel that way.

 

Here's a snippet from my testimony. I was raised Lutheran, much like you were raised Catholic. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I was baptized as a baby. I went to sunday school, and I went to church. When I was in high school I was confirmed. I did the "churchianity" thing. I observed the 10 commandments and I knew John 3:16. I knew the words to "Jesus loves me." I went to Bible camp in the summers and had a wonderful Lutheran time while I did it. But here's the thing....all that stuff....fleeting. Worthless. Vain. It means nothing. You are partially right. All of that stuff, going to church, summer camp, confirmation, sunday school, was made up by humans. Not that it was a bad thing. That makes up the "religious" aspect of Christianity. Those things do not make Christianity any different than any other over the counter religion. If that is all there was to Christianity, then you are right, and there is no purpose to being a Christian. However, there is far more to being a Christian.

 

Being a Christian has nothing to do with:

*going to church.

*knowing the 10 commandments

*being Catholic

*being any specific denomination

*being heterosexual

*giving to charity

*putting money in the offering

*whether or not your parents are Christians

*going to confession

*praying to Mary

*carrying a rosary

*where you went to school

 

Like I said, none of that stuff has anything to do with being a real Christian.

 

You're lumping homosexuality in with pornea because you believe the bible says it's a sin.

No I lump homosexuality with nothing. I am telling you what the Bible says about it. I didn't make up the word pornea. It is a Koine Greek word for "sexual immorality" a.k.a. "sexual sin." The fact is that "sexual immorality" is always referenced when the Bible talks about homosexuality, just as it is to adultery, pre-marital sex, rape, etc....

 

Tell me this, is adultery wrong? Rape? Child pornography? Incest?

 

Where does it explicitly say in the bible homosexuality is a sin?

Heh...in quite a few places actually. Keep in mind however, there is no place where the bible says "o.k. now there are those sins. Now we will pick on the gay homos because it is fun to smear the queer!! MWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!"

 

How is this: not anything that I have said has made any impact on you at all. I am not offended by it. I expect it. How can I explain a color to a born blind person? How can I describe sound to a born deaf person? How can I explain the speed of light to a an indegenous tribesman in Iryan Jaya?

 

I will point you in the right direction at least: 1 Corinthians 6:9

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...[/i]

 

It's pretty clear there. This is not interpretation. This is literal meaning. Again the purpose of this passage is not to pick on gays. Adulterers implies heterosexuality. Idolaters refers to fertility religions (such as the temple prostitution that was practiced by the Romans). "Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders," like I said, pretty simple and well laid out. No questionable meanings there. Now before you judge, let's read on:

1 Corinthians 6:10-11

...nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Interesting....so...where in this does it singles out gay people?

 

Some verses have been interpreted incorrectly to imply that it is a sin, but the only passage I can think of that even comes close is from a book in the bible that Christians no longer pay any attention to.

 

You can present all the Biblical principles you want - but as the bible is not a good source for accurate information...

....by your standards. Again, I mean no offense in this, so please do not take it that way. What scholarly literature have you read to aid you in your conclusion on the authenticity of the Bible? Might you be referring to the Graff-Welhausen documentary hypothesis in relation to the Old Testament? Are you perhaps referring to Dr. Albert Schwietzer's book on the "Quest for the Historical Jesus?" Oh I bet you must be referring to Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar's book "The Five Gospels." O.k. sarcasm aside, you are coming to a conclusion based on your own experience. I am sure you have not consulted the seemingly endless mountains of archealogical fact that support the authenticity of the Bible. You are not considering extra-biblical sources from the same period. I would be willing to bet that you have not even read the Bible for yourself (not counting memory verses in Catholic school).

 

If you are interested in actually reading on the subject, I recommend a few books.

1. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

2. The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel

3. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict By Josh McDowell

 

Before you declare that the Bible has no authenticity, you may want to read up on the matter in more detail.

 

 

Then disagree with the appointment of a gay bishop, and just move on.

 

I did that. You are the one who told me not to bring the Bible into it. My point is that you can't make a rational decision on this matter without consulting the Bible. As it is, the Episcopal church did consult the Bible. The church leaders debated it, and they reached a conclusion to appoint him. It is not the decision that I support, but then I'm not Episcopal so what does it matter? Is this guy really a Christian? I don't know because I have never met him. Can gay people be Christians? Gay people can believe in Christ Jesus. Jesus came for the sinners. That's what it is all about.

 

 

Your response to a statement I made

Translation: I don't think for myself, I unquestioningly regurgitate information I read written by bigots 2000 years ago.

 

Not really worthy of a reply. Let me just say that you are wrong. You might not think so, but you are. Refer to my above question regarding your sources and biblical authenticity.

 

In those days there was no Israel. The Jews were a nomadic desert people who traveled in tribes, and when settled continued to live in tribes. There was a tribunal rule that did set down rules and laws. It would be many years before there finally was an Israel at all.

 

And I am assuming that you have good arcaeological sources to back up your claims? Refer to my above argument regarding your sources and Biblical authenticity.

 

 

What's "right" is a subjective term, since right and wrong are man made concepts.

AND

In the end, no one can know what is "right" for everyone. It is an ideal, a way of categorizing our actions or the actions of others based on what we perceive to be "good" or "bad" (more man-made concepts).

 

BINGO!! I've got you. So you have no basis for right and wrong.

*Truth is relative, and so is morality.

*Forget the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of other nations).

*We now define right in our own ways.

*Homosexuality is not wrong because you define it.

 

(this next section is intended as just an illustration, and is in no way intended to be offensive)

Suddenly one night someone breaks into your house, rapes and kills your family, and strings them all up from the ceiling each with "thank you" notes attached. What would be your basis for wanting this murderous individual arrested or killed?

He was only doing as he saw fit. Did he see it wrong to rape your wife? No, he smiled the whole time . He didn't see it as wrong or right. He just wanted to do it. (sorry for the grim details.) How can you, based on your system of morals, at all convict any criminal? You said "no one can know what is 'right' for everyone." Well maybe this guy saw it right to do what he did.

You said "what's 'right' is a subjective term, since right and wrong are man made concepts." Thus, by your system of morals, in which there is no standard of right or wrong, I can do anything to you that I wish and it is fine.

 

Here is some more of what your system of morals ultimately leads to:

*The terrorists who slammed planes into the WTC were fine in doing as they saw fit.

*Ted Bundy was not a bad guy after all. He was just doing as he saw fit.

*Hitler was benefitting the German people by using natural selection and survival of the fittest when he killed millions of Jews. He was doing as he saw fit.

 

Now again I ask, what is your justification? Don't give me any of that truth is relative stuff. People like to say "there are no absolutes." However, that statement in itself is an absolute and is thus 100% self-defeating.

 

Now that I've given you a few things to think about:

What is your justification?

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by jedispy

Look at it this way, the truth is not relative. The truth is not subjective. There is a correct answer, and not everyone who believes they are correct really are correct. Someone must be right, and someone must be wrong.

You're twisting what I said. I said that we may not know the truth in this matter yet, or that it may not be what you (or I) expect.

My question is how do you find any justification in what you label as good or evil?

I try not to label things as good or evil, as I don't believe anything (or anyone) is inherently good or evil. Especially since good people are entirely capable of doing evil things, and evil people capable of doing good.

I mean no offense, so please don't take this the wrong way, but it is clear that you don't understand it.

This, once again, is your opinion. I don't agree with your views, so I must not understand them - otherwise I would see the "truth," right?

My point about growing up Catholic was only that I'm not ignorant of the Bible's message. My search for truth has taken me on many paths and lead me to examine many explanations, beliefs systems, and philosophies.

Those things do not make Christianity any different than any other over the counter religion.

What is an over-the-counter religion? I've not heard that term before.

If that is all there was to Christianity, then you are right, and there is no purpose to being a Christian. However, there is far more to being a Christian.

When did I say there was no purpose to being a Christian? Keep your words out of my mouth, please.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with:

I have many Christian buddies that will say otherwise, and I'm sure other Christians on this forum might agree. If all that stuff has nothing to do with it, there'd be no point to having it, would there?

No I lump homosexuality with nothing. I am telling you what the Bible says about it. I didn't make up the word pornea. It is a Koine Greek word for "sexual immorality" a.k.a. "sexual sin." The fact is that "sexual immorality" is always referenced when the Bible talks about homosexuality, just as it is to adultery, pre-marital sex, rape, etc....

There was no word for homosexual in any of the languages the Bible was originally written in, as far as I'm aware of. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm chalking the inclusion of the word "homosexual" in the bible to one of its many translations into different languages over the years (or perhaps more recent interpretation for newer editions of the Bible).

Tell me this, is adultery wrong? Rape? Child pornography? Incest?

Adultery is wrong only if you care about the person you're in the relationship with.

Rape is illegal - wrong is a matter for the law to decide on a case by case basis.

Child pornography likewise is illegal, and while it may not suit my personal tastes, whether it's wrong or not is not up to me.

Incest is wrong in this day and age (I'm not advocating it, believe me), but the lines weren't so clear many years ago.

How is this: not anything that I have said has made any impact on you at all. I am not offended by it. I expect it. How can I explain a color to a born blind person? How can I describe sound to a born deaf person? How can I explain the speed of light to a an indegenous tribesman in Iryan Jaya?

The nature of religion is based on faith, and as such is not explainable through any hard evidence or proof. All you've got to go on is a book, written by many people over a period of years that has been translated (possibly mis-translated) and edited over the years.

But again, you insinuate with the holier-than-thou attitude of most Christians : how can I (the heathen devil) possibly understand the glory of God? Come down off your righteous high horse.

O.k. sarcasm aside, you are coming to a conclusion based on your own experience. I am sure you have not consulted the seemingly endless mountains of archealogical fact that support the authenticity of the Bible. You are not considering extra-biblical sources from the same period. I would be willing to bet that you have not even read the Bible for yourself (not counting memory verses in Catholic school).

The mountain is far from endless. And it's been said before, but I will reiterate in case you missed it - the fact that some parts of the bible do have evidence to suggest that they are correct (which I do not deny) does not mean that the entire bible is therefore authentic and accurate. I am also aware of extra-biblical sources which can confirm parts of the bible.

 

A fictional book may contain factual elements, but we cannot look at the factual elements alone and surmise that it is a work of non-fiction.

 

And you'd lose that bet. Not very Christ-like, slinging accusations this way and that (which you're rather fond of doing).

”Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measurement ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote (speck) that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and them shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:1-5

Before you declare that the Bible has no authenticity, you may want to read up on the matter in more detail.

I did not declare the Bible has no authenticity. I said it's not a good source for accurate information.

Please stop putting your words in my mouth, and refer to my above passage.

Gay people can believe in Christ Jesus. Jesus came for the sinners. That's what it is all about.

*disgusted* And if it is reasonably proven that Homosexuality is not a choice? Would that change your position? Would you refuse to accept or refute the findings, no matter how persuasive? Or do you think that Christianity would re-examine its position on homosexuality being a "sin?"

Let me just say that you are wrong. You might not think so, but you are. Refer to my above question regarding your sources and biblical authenticity.

Refer to my above passage about your hypocritical nature.

BINGO!! I've got you. So you have no basis for right and wrong.

*Truth is relative, and so is morality.

*Forget the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of other nations).

*We now define right in our own ways.

*Homosexuality is not wrong because you define it.

[laughs]

My basis for right and wrong is just that - my basis. What I believe. I can't force anyone to believe as I do, nor can I be expected to believe as others do.

Truth IS relative. As is Morality. Perhaps you don't understand those words meanings. There are many different systems for morality, just as there are for truth. Christian truth and Christian morality are not the only ones.

Right has always been defined in our own ways. But what is "right" is enforced by the law system of the ruling culture (relative to country, state/province, city/town, and home).

Homosexuality is not wrong to me not because I define it, but because I have no problem with it. And I am the only person that really matters in this. I will not perceive homosexuality to be "wrong" or problematic simply because others take offense to it.

So you'll have to try and continue to "catch" me, Hercule Poirot.

 

(this next section is intended as just an illustration, and is in no way intended to be offensive)

But somehow manages to be extraordinarily so, and I will not quote it.

To answer your questions, though:

My basis for wanting this murderous individual killed would be on account of his breaking my local laws (which prohibit rape and murder).

 

Paul Hill, the former Presbyterian minister was doing only as "he saw fit" when he gunned down an abortion doctor & his wife and bodyguard. "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview shortly before he was put to death, during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to glory." He just "wanted to do it" too.

 

My system of morals is not the basis for which criminals are convicted - how does this make sense at all? The criminal justice system and local laws are the basis on which criminals are convicted. I did say "no one can know what is 'right' for everyone," but that only means that what's "right" to you may not be right to others. It's entirely possible that what the guy in your hypothetical situation saw it right to do what he did.

 

You said "what's 'right' is a subjective term, since right and wrong are man made concepts." Thus, by your system of morals, in which there is no standard of right or wrong, I can do anything to you that I wish and it is fine.

Absolutely corect. You are free to do anything to me that you wish - but depending on what you choose to do, I have legal rights and options. If you try to hurt me, I am legally allowed to defend myself. If you slanderize me, I am allowed to sue. Just because you're free to do anything you wish does not mean that there are no punishments or repercussions. Especially if you break the law. But there is no universal right or wrong. Only what is relative to you or the culture you live in.

*The terrorists who slammed planes into the WTC were fine in doing as they saw fit.

And as much as that sucks, despite how horrible it was - it was wrong to US, not to them. It was "right" to them. Just as it was "right" to Paul Hill or Ted Bundy or Hitler (all relative).

Now again I ask, what is your justification? Don't give me any of that truth is relative stuff. People like to say "there are no absolutes." However, that statement in itself is an absolute and is thus 100% self-defeating.

Actually, I think the full quote is "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes." Doesn't matter though.

I don't need anything to justify my views. You might need that justification from another source (Bible, most likely) but I don't.

 

On a side note, I will no longer bicker with you on our personal views in this thread - it's way off topic. So don't expect another response from me about it, unless you want to PM me.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

BINGO!! I've got you. So you have no basis for right and wrong.

*Truth is relative, and so is morality.

*Forget the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of other nations).

*We now define right in our own ways.

*Homosexuality is not wrong because you define it.

 

Wow jedispy - you certainly like to be overly dramatic don't you!

Just because I (and I believe Eldritch probably feels the same way, although I can't speak for him) don't believe in ABSOLUTE morality (i.e. fixed morals which cannot alter), doesn't mean I / we have NO basis for morality!!

 

The truth is the truth - your correct. But as far as I'm concerned, morals are about how we as human beings REACT to the truth. i.e. morals are not truth in and of themselves, they are simply our 'reflection' of the truth around / in us.

 

You said "what's 'right' is a subjective term, since right and wrong are man made concepts." Thus, by your system of morals, in which there is no standard of right or wrong, I can do anything to you that I wish and it is fine.

 

Of course this isn't the case.

 

Individual morality is just that - what you personally believe is right and wrong.

 

However, the 'morality' of a nation - at least in a democracy - is suppost to be determined by the majority. I say 'suppost' to be, because it is in fact the goverment that implements and decides on the laws of the land that say what can and can't be done - essentially what is right and wrong.

(Of course, things would be different in, say, a dictatorship. In this case, the dictator(s) decide what is right and wrong. An individuals morality and freedoms (at least in certain areas) become 'over-ruled'.)

 

So in the case of the murderer you mentioend in your example, he/she could personally believe that murder ISN'T wrong - of course they could! I personally beleive it is wrong, but I'm not a murderer am I!!!

But his/her opinion would PROBABLY be at odds with the morality of the majority of the people in his/her community. (In a civilised society at least).

Assuming that community has a functioning system of law and order, the murderer will be caught and bought to justice...

 

...of course another sensible senario is that the murderer knows quite well that murder is wrong - but chooses to do wrong anyway. i.e. just because people have morals, doesn't mean they will always follow them...

 

 

I'm not making this stuff up - this is how it is. People decide what is right and wrong - both individually, and in groups (goverments, religious bodies etc.).

Please note that NONE of this requires absolute morality to function.

 

I don't know exactly what point your trying to make here. It seems like your saying that if you do not have an ABSOLUTE set of morals, then you effectively have none at all!!

 

I WOULD be insulted if the claim wasn't so rediculous!

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Actually, I've thought of quite a good example of differeing viewpoints on morality.

 

I boldly stated in my last post : 'I am not a murderer'.

...but then again - maybe I am?!

 

No - you don't need to try and trace my i.p. address and get the cops round. I haven't killed any humans.

But I have eaten the flesh of dead animals. True, I didn't kill them with my bare hands, but I bought the meat from people, who buy it from other people and eventually you get to the people who DID kill the animals involved.

 

Are these people 'murderers'? (the result of which I then 'consume' - which at least associates me with the killing)

 

I don't personally see this as murder (i.e. wrong). But some vegitarians would take a VERY different view!

i.e. Killing an animal to eat it's meat IS murder - and wrong.

 

One truth ... 2 different moral viewpoints on that truth... you getting the picture?

 

...and I do kill living things directly. I killed a shed-load of ants who were trying to take over my flat a few weeks ago!

 

 

Before people accuse me of possibly 'de-railing' this thread again, I'm just replying to this whole ABSOLUTE moral argument thing. And in the end this does have bearing on the topic at hand - gays, and how the church view them.

 

Certain things are FACTS or 'truths' about homosexuality, which aren't influenced by the churches opinion. (Or my opinion, or anybody else's opinion)

 

e.g. Can homosexual drives be inborn.

Does homosexuality pose health risks.

Does homosexuality tend to cause depression

 

etc. etc.

 

There are ABSOLUTE answers to these questions.

 

While I believe the answers to these questions SHOULD affect how homosexuality is viewed morally, this doesn't mean other people / organisation have to take heed to these answers - including the church...

[Homuncul]

This thread is becoming better day by day. Although I'm tired of talking about homosexuality, I'm still delighted to read post. Good job. Have a cookie

[Rainer511]

Hey JediSpy! I barely read the topic but its nice to see someone putting up a good case for the Christian point of view, I tried for a topic or two but High School is too demanding to keep up. May I also suggest More than a Carpenter also by Josh McDowell. I've had many people tell me the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict is also good, I've even bought it, but I haven't had the time to read it. One comment though-

 

Look at it this way, the truth is not relative. The truth is not subjective. There is a correct answer, and not everyone who believes they are correct really are correct. Someone must be right, and someone must be wrong.

 

Your idea on truth is dependant on your worldview. Marxist Dialectics would say that we are always moving toward a greater truth. If we are looking at things from the stand point of Biblical Christianity then yes, the truth is not subjective or relative. Please understand I agree with your statement wholeheartedly though.

 

 

 

 

Edit:I was brought up for a good part of my life as a Catholic. Although we said we were Catholic, my father continually fed me Secular Humanistic ideas. I just assumed that evolution and God coexisted somehow because I assumed that there was a God. I didn't think there was any other choice-in fact I didn't even think about it. After Hurricane Andrew we moved from Miami Florida and I started attending a small Christian School. A child there was continually telling teachers that he didn't believe in God. This was the first time I was presented with the idea that you could believe God doesn't exist. Although I loved the concept of Evolution I was being told that it wasn't true, and no one gave me much reason to why other than for the Bible says so. Sunday School wasn't helping much either at our new Catholic Church. We never learned anything from the bible, we would learn from workbooks that didn't even give us Bible references to look up what the Bible says about the issues. The workbooks would just say, Jane did this, Jane did that, and then the teacher would tell us what she did right and wrong. I was more or less told I should believe what these people tell me just because they said so. I don't think I ever denied God entirely, but all this caused a lot of problems for me. At school the main priority for me was fitting in and surcame to pure pressure. Although I more or less got myself together morally and I did believe that God existed I still didn't feel complete. Just this last summer I joined a Methodist youth group, we went up to Junaluska North Carolina for a type of vocal camp where we would come together and learn songs, and at the end of the week we would sing them. The experience I had with the other youth members was amazing. On the way back, our bus broke down. There was a chance that if we didn't stop when we did we could've died to a spark hitting the gas tank. We were stranded out on a road far from anyone we could contact. A church van from a near by Methodist church saw us and stopped to help. To make a long story short they ended up giving us transportation to their Church and we were to stay there for the night. They were going to have a speaker talk that night and they invited us to come. He spoke on many things, kept it interesting, and then at the end he offered people to leave the room and talk to a counselor if you wanted to receive Christ. I had already asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins, but I never did feel a personal relationship with him. Whenever an alter call like this happened I've always felt compelled to go up, but hadn't just because I felt I didn't need to or that it would be weird because I was more or less a 'good kid'. About 9 of our youth went to talk with the counselor. That day, July 29, 2003, I committed my life to Jesus Christ. Suddenly, the Bible has become increasing interesting to me. I think I'm happier now than I've ever been before in my life. The counselor, suggested I read A Case for Christ, and I'm glad he did. That we don't need to just have blind faith is good to know. I guess that direction I'm going with this is that being brought up Catholic gave me a lot of problems, and if you’re basing your opinion of Christianity on Catholicism then I suggest your reevaluate your opinion. If you talked to the 10th grade version of me and said that I would be considering attending a Bible College so I could learn more about Apologetics and Theology I would say you were insane.

 

I have many Christian buddies that will say otherwise, and I'm sure other Christians on this forum might agree. If all that stuff has nothing to do with it, there'd be no point to having it, would there?

 

The epitome of the Bible is the story of Christ. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is all that is required to be a Christian. I have a bunch more I’d comment on but I barely have the time.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by Rainer511

The epitome of the Bible is the story of Christ. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is all that is required to be a Christian. I have a bunch more I’d comment on but I barely have the time.

So then remove all that other "unnecessary" information from the bible. Hell, throw out the entire Old and New Testament too.

 

Condense the entire book to a single sentence - "All that is required to be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

 

Somehow I think you'll find that support for that idea is a little lacking.

[El Sitherino]

Now I could be wrong but didn't Christ preach "Love thy enemy and hate their sin"?

also didn't Christ socialize and befriend the social outcasts which in those days were homosexuals, islamics (in some areas), prostitutes, and some form of non jewish sect that I can't remember. I distinctly remember hearing speeches about how all of god's children will be lifted to heaven if they repent their sins, and if they just accept the one true god. and live by the gospel of christ. I never distinctly heard christ condemn them. I also remember hearing christians stating that the old testament is void compared to all things spoken by christ.

 

ok I just dug out my bible

Leviticus 18:22 "you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

(keep in mind abomination refers to non christian acts of sacrifice and traditional stuff.)

Then it refers me to Deuteronomy 23:18

Deuteronomy 23:18 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the lord your god for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the lord you god."

 

perhaps it means to not sleep with a male prostitute in church *shrug*

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

ok I just dug out my bible

Welcome to last week.

We've already discussed Leviticus... you can read back a couple posts if you want to see the discussion there.

The Deuteronomy passage is interesting, but I fail to see its relevance, or any connection to homosexuals for that matter.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Eldritch

Welcome to last week.

We've already discussed Leviticus... you can read back a couple posts if you want to see the discussion there.

The Deuteronomy passage is interesting, but I fail to see its relevance, or any connection to homosexuals for that matter.

i know this i was just simply bringing their argument up front to squash it myself. I'm on your side (if there is one) I too don't see the real connection but i've looked in 3 bibles and i get the same reference from the passage. i look at the side section and it tells me to look there. and i've been following this entire thread since the first post. and yes I know that leviticus holds no real value but "they"(christians) seem to stick to it, atleast the "homosexuality is wrong" people I mean.

 

on a side note I was once a christian and turned buddhist. and don't feed me that mess on how a "real" christian could never find a way to turn his/her back on christ. things happen people grow up, some don't. I chose to think rationally. deal with it.