davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 13, 2020 10:40:46 GMT -8
Did you read what I said? i do not believe homosexuals DO choose to be attracted to same sex. What I said was/is I don’t understand the predisposition towards same sex attraction. But I also said, no one... not heterosexual, not homosexual, no one ... has to have sex, so the behavior, separate and distinct from the attraction, is always a choice. I did. But I also think celibacy is counter to the natural instincts of all us animals. Because of this, I reject the notion that being celibate would be a requirement by design if you were attracted to the same sex. But resisting sin IS a requirement if one wishes to enter Heaven... which NO ONE is capable of accomplishing on their own, which is why faith in Christ is the requirement. as to celibacy, it definitely is contrary to our desires but that doesn’t make it any kind of mandate (meaning we still don’t HAVE to do it). Whatever extent we want to engage a behavior, it is still a behavioral choice, nonetheless. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jan 13, 2020 17:22:42 GMT -8
If we can put aside scripture for a minute, does it seem reasonable that God would deny intimacy to someone who really didn't do anything wrong by being wired differently? 1. Same sex relations are hardly an example of "intimacy" in the manner of the marital act between a husband and wife. 2. Based on your logic then God would not "deny intimacy" to the pedophile, the brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter who would desire to engage in incest, or the man who wants to mate with his animal, since they were guilty of nothing more than being "wired differently." If desire alone--regardless of its origin--is the measure of what is acceptable then anything could be justified. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 13, 2020 22:05:31 GMT -8
If we can put aside scripture for a minute, does it seem reasonable that God would deny intimacy to someone who really didn't do anything wrong by being wired differently? There's no such thing as " wired differently." I disagree with that, there are differences in everyone from the time of birth that manifest themselves no matter the way they were raised. An extreme example is pedophiles, especially those who target kids who are 3-8 years old. There is something different in the mental makeup of an adult man or woman to be sexually attracted to young children. It can't be cured, they can't be made not to have that attraction. It is who they are, part of their wiring. Which is why it is logical to lump these kind of differences into the birth defects category. Birth defects can be physical or mental, and don't have to have anything to do with intelligence. Rather, one who is attracted to a type of person in which reproduction is impossible (child, same sex, animals, whatever), has an internal defect which prevents continuation of the species. In the case of homosexuals, it doesn't make them a bad person or even a sinner (in my opinion), they are just a person with a defect that makes them attracted to the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. In the case of pedophiles, the defect is in line with those who enjoy hurting or killing others; it must either be curtailed or the person with the defect must be eliminated for the safety of society. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 13, 2020 22:19:59 GMT -8
If we can put aside scripture for a minute, does it seem reasonable that God would deny intimacy to someone who really didn't do anything wrong by being wired differently? 1. Same sex relations are hardly an example of "intimacy" in the manner of the marital act between a husband and wife. 2. Based on your logic then God would not "deny intimacy" to the pedophile, the brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter who would desire to engage in incest, or the man who wants to mate with his animal, since they were guilty of nothing more than being "wired differently." If desire alone--regardless of its origin--is the measure of what is acceptable then anything could be justified. The difference in #2 is consent. Pedophiles or zoophiles are having sex with people or creatures that are unable (or refused) to consent , no different than a straight man raping an adult straight woman. A consensual gay couple can be intimate and their actions together do not hurt anyone. However, to label their behavior as "normal" and attempt to make their relationship the same as a traditional marriage does not help society, for their relationship is a dead end. Their DNA does not get passed on to the next generation and raising children in an environment lacking both male or female parental love is not the goal we should have. In a way, a homosexual relationship is like divorce; society should allow it, but since it does not help the foundation of society (the family unit), it should not be promoted as the ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jan 14, 2020 4:03:37 GMT -8
Given that homosexuals have been around as long as there have been people perhaps you should reconsider their role in society, and what "normal" means. It is entirely possible that having homosexual members of your tribe confers an advantage over an entirely heterosexual tribe. While you wouldn't have as many reproducing members of the tribe this might be a good thing in that it provides more adults who contribute to food gathering, defense, child-rearing etc. without making more mouths to feed. It would also lessen the competition for mates among tribe members, and thus lead to fewer conflicts within the tribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jan 14, 2020 4:04:48 GMT -8
How would you know?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 14, 2020 6:36:09 GMT -8
This just occurred to me:
No. But God doesn’t deny anyone anything. That is the nature of free will: you, me, they, we get do do as we please. We also get to bear the consequences of our actions, first, in this life and also in the next life. As homosexuals will likely tell us, they experience intimacy (although I’m not sure a warped understanding of what “love” is allows them to be truly intimate).
No, being wired differently, however we understand that concept, is not the sin. Engaging the behavior that separates us from God is the sin. Further, I’m not so sure they are wired any differently than the rest of us:
we are each given to sin, and no one sin is any worse than any other sin: A homosexual is attracted to their same gender, but that doesn’t set them apart or make that sin any greater (or lesser) than any other.
You might be an inveterate liar, but RSM might be given to greed, and I might be an adulterer... it is all sin, but we each have a particular sin or two that we just cannot overcome... none of us are wired differently, we are just different people, brought up in different ways, having had different experiences. A homosexual is probably more given to attempting to rationalize their sin than, maybe, the rest of us are, but it seems to me they are no more a special class of sin than any of us.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 14, 2020 7:52:36 GMT -8
You really believe God considers two consenting adults, who express their love for each other sexually, are doing a bad thing?
I've always believed that God = Love, and acts of love aren't bad (sins). And to RSMs point, let's stay focused on the "consenting" aspect, and not conflate this with the pedophiles and the sheep lovers.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 14, 2020 9:39:40 GMT -8
You really believe God considers two consenting adults, who express their love for each other sexually, are doing a bad thing? I've always believed that God = Love, and acts of love aren't bad (sins). And to RSMs point, let's stay focused on the "consenting" aspect, and not conflate this with the pedophiles and the sheep lovers. Yes, I believe anyone fulfilling their sexual lust, including those who believe they are experiencing “love,” are doing a bad thing. “Love” as God defines it towards us, is only one aspect of God. First, His love, thatHe sets as a standard for us, is not the warm, mushy feeling we reference when we hear the word. The love which God embodied by dying on the cross is more than a filial (brotherly) or erotic love: It is a sacrifice of self: Putting the needs of another over the needs of oneself. Which love, I confess, I suck at, but I recognize my shortcoming and I do try to improve. so, you are right, acts of that kind of love are great, but not all acts that appear selfless to us are that kind of love, and almost no Valentine-type confessions of love are that kind of love. Certainly, they have a revered place in our experience, and I’m not saying they are all bad. My point is, most of us (though not all by any means) don’t know what that love is. Whether homo- a- bi- or heterosexual, we are predisposed to use the term to describe a self-fulfillment rather than an “other’s needs” fulfillment. Scripture uses 3 terms which are all translated “love:” - Eros: An erotic love that ends once “you” fail to fulfill me (or turn me on, or serve some temporal desires)
- Fileo: Brotherly love, that lasts as long as it is returned, tends to get interrupted when “you” disappoint me.
- Agape: selfless devotion to “your” needs, even over my own.
our English understanding of the word is lacking.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 14, 2020 10:29:13 GMT -8
Dave, I assume you mean sex outside of marriage, or do you mean all sex because of the Eros factor?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 14, 2020 10:48:53 GMT -8
Dave, I assume you mean sex outside of marriage, or do you mean all sex because of the Eros factor? Good question. generally speaking, yes, I do mean sex outside of marriage, however I cannot dismiss the possibility of erotic (only) sex between married couples... so I guess my answer is more a qualified “yes.l |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jan 14, 2020 11:04:45 GMT -8
Wow, this thread has reminded me of a story I've considered posting several times, but it always seemed a little too sensitive. Now it appears that the members of this forum are about as sensitive as a rawhide scrotum, so I'll relate it now. But first, two points:
(1) I don't think anyone chooses to be homosexual. Life is much easier if one is hetero, and if it were a choice, I think virtually everyone would choose that path.
(2) Some of the rhetoric on this thread is way too Old Testament fire-and-brimstone for me. I believe in a kind and benevolent God of the New Testament. If there are two homosexuals who are exemplary citizens, do good deeds all day long, are charitable, follow the commandments, worship their God and treat everyone they meet with kindness, I can't believe in a God who would relegate them to hell because they cornhole each other at night. Sin is evil because it somehow causes harm, and while it may be repugnant to me, what two consenting men do at night does no harm.
The story: In the summer of 2018, I was at a party/BBQ at the home of a friend. After the meal, as often happens at these kinds of affairs, the women tended to congregate inside the house, and the men retreated outdoors for Scotch or bourbon and a cigar. (I don't think there were any gin or vodka drinkers invited, thank God.) Anyway, somehow the subject of conversation got around to homosexuality and the other LGBTQ rainbow delusions. Because there were about a dozen of us, both religious and secular positions were presented. One guy who had been a clinical psychologist in private practice for four decades offered a slant on the subject that has been touched on here.
As best I can remember his position a year and a half after the party, it went like this: God (if you're a believer) or Mother Nature (if you're not) went to incredibly elaborate lengths to ensure that humans, and indeed most other animal species, would survive. They created (or evolved) two sexes. They created or evolved emotional and sexual attraction between the two, and perfectly engineered physical mechanisms for mating. They even went so far as to ensure that offspring get half of their genetic material from each parent, in order to ensure that the species' gene pool remain robust and diverse.
So if that was the intent of God or Nature, what should we make of homosexuality and the other LGBTQ people? The progressive current that society has been on for a hundred years wants us to believe those are just normal variants of the species, like red hair or left-handedness. But taken to their logical extremes, having red hair or being left-handed wouldn't bring about the extinction of humanity, while homosexuality and LBGTQ-ism would. Since God or Nature doesn't make those kinds of mistakes, perhaps those sexual abnormalities are something else. What if, rather than normal variants, they are a relatively common and benign form of mental illness? What if some anatomical, physiological, genetic, chemical or hormonal "error" is the cause of those conditions? Rather than normalizing and legitimizing every new gender delusion that comes down the pike, as we do today, we instead study the potential causes of those conditions to determine what they are and, with time and luck, arrive at an explanation and a potential correction?
When the guy completed his theory, another older dude who had been a surgeon almost as long added: That theory is as valid and worthy of serious medical and academic study as any. However, that explanation is so fraught with landmines of political correctness and perceived offenses that it will never see the light of day that leads to serious study.
Could both of them be right?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 14, 2020 12:50:40 GMT -8
Wow, this thread has reminded me of a story I've considered posting several times, but it always seemed a little too sensitive. Now it appears that the members of this forum are about as sensitive as a rawhide scrotum, so I'll relate it now. But first, two points: (1) I don't think anyone chooses to be homosexual. Life is much easier if one is hetero, and if it were a choice, I think virtually everyone would choose that path. (2) Some of the rhetoric on this thread is way too Old Testament fire-and-brimstone for me. I believe in a kind and benevolent God of the New Testament. If there are two homosexuals who are exemplary citizens, do good deeds all day long, are charitable, follow the commandments, worship their God and treat everyone they meet with kindness, I can't believe in a God who would relegate them to hell because they cornhole each other at night. Sin is evil because it somehow causes harm, and while it may be repugnant to me, what two consenting men do at night does no harm.
The story: In the summer of 2018, I was at a party/BBQ at the home of a friend. After the meal, as often happens at these kinds of affairs, the women tended to congregate inside the house, and the men retreated outdoors for Scotch or bourbon and a cigar. (I don't think there were any gin or vodka drinkers invited, thank God.) Anyway, somehow the subject of conversation got around to homosexuality and the other LGBTQ rainbow delusions. Because there were about a dozen of us, both religious and secular positions were presented. One guy who had been a clinical psychologist in private practice for four decades offered a slant on the subject that has been touched on here.
As best I can remember his position a year and a half after the party, it went like this: God (if you're a believer) or Mother Nature (if you're not) went to incredibly elaborate lengths to ensure that humans, and indeed most other animal species, would survive. They created (or evolved) two sexes. They created or evolved emotional and sexual attraction between the two, and perfectly engineered physical mechanisms for mating. They even went so far as to ensure that offspring get half of their genetic material from each parent, in order to ensure that the species' gene pool remain robust and diverse.
So if that was the intent of God or Nature, what should we make of homosexuality and the other LGBTQ people? The progressive current that society has been on for a hundred years wants us to believe those are just normal variants of the species, like red hair or left-handedness. But taken to their logical extremes, having red hair or being left-handed wouldn't bring about the extinction of humanity, while homosexuality and LBGTQ-ism would. Since God or Nature doesn't make those kinds of mistakes, perhaps those sexual abnormalities are something else. What if, rather than normal variants, they are a relatively common and benign form of mental illness? What if some anatomical, physiological, genetic, chemical or hormonal "error" is the cause of those conditions? Rather than normalizing and legitimizing every new gender delusion that comes down the pike, as we do today, we instead study the potential causes of those conditions to determine what they are and, with time and luck, arrive at an explanation and a potential correction?
When the guy completed his theory, another older dude who had been a surgeon almost as long added: That theory is as valid and worthy of serious medical and academic study as any. However, that explanation is so fraught with landmines of political correctness and perceived offenses that it will never see the light of day that leads to serious study.Could both of them be right? 1. It doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is what is proven. And, at this point, that older surgeon is right: No meaningful research has been done because activists have made it uncomfortable to discuss... however, that said, I also do t necessarily believe anyone chooses to be homosexual. I believe the attraction to same sex is part nature and art nurture. But it is not the temptation that is a problem because... 2. Actions mean little. GOD looks at the heart and at an individuals relationship with Him. I offer as evidence the thief who hung in the cross next to Jesus. Had done NONE of those things you mentioned. He was a thief being it to death for his crimes. Yet, even with mere moments left in his life, during which he was clearly incapable of doing any good deed, Jesus told him, he was going to Heaven. Why? Because he had faith in the savior. Those things you mention are good things and, as you point out, even reprobates and sinners of all sorts can do good deeds. But those things only impress man... not God (although He does encourage us to do those things, they don’t result n salvation). Sin is not temptation, whether I’m tempted to have sex with another man, or tempted to lie, or cheat on my wife, or gossip... it is not a sin to be tempted: JESUS, the CHRIST was tempted. Sin is behavior, or actually giving in to that temptation. I’m also not saying homosexuals cannot go to Heaven. Unrepentant sin is what sends us to Hell, not God. Hell is an individual choice, just like salvation. The ONLY way to be free from the penalty of our sin is salvation through Jesus Christ <period> 3. Yes, they can both be right. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jan 14, 2020 13:17:35 GMT -8
Unrepentant sin is what sends us to Hell, not God. Hell is an individual choice, just like salvation. The ONLY way to be free from the penalty of our sin is salvation through Jesus Christ <period> If that is true, then not only are all non-repentant homosexuals doomed to hell, but all Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Shintos, agnostics, atheists and members of all regional and tribal religions are as well. That's roughly 5 billion of the 7 billion humans on earth. I'm sorry, but that paints a dark, cold, uninviting picture of God's world that I don't want to abide. It brings to mind the old joke punchline, "I don't want to go to heaven because none of my friends will be there." A few posts back you said it was not being homosexual that is the sin, but rather engaging in homosexual acts. Now you're saying actions mean little. This confuses me. Which is it? |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jan 14, 2020 13:58:17 GMT -8
You really believe God considers two consenting adults, who express their love for each other sexually, are doing a bad thing? I've always believed that God = Love, and acts of love aren't bad (sins). And to RSMs point, let's stay focused on the "consenting" aspect, and not conflate this with the pedophiles and the sheep lovers. Again, based on this logic then adultery (in the name of "love"), incestuous (adult) relationships, and polygamy would be perfectly justified. Consent alone as a moral standard can be used to justify almost anything in the sexual realm. "Love" is not merely an emotion. True love is selfless and is directed at willing the good of another. Which begs the question, "What is good?"; which in turn leads to the question of the source of morality (which defines good and evil), which leads, ultimately to either God or atheism. If you're going to bring God into the equation, then you've got to consider God's moral law. How can one enlist God (as "love") to argue against His own revealed law? His love and His law do not contradict one another. In fact, I would argue, His law is given to us precisely because of His love for us. |
|
