Homosexuals vs Obese

Obesity isn't always a sin. There are medical conditions completely out of the person's control that can cause it. There is even a condition where the person never feels full, and other people cannot loose weight no matter what they do.

__________________
Proud to be Cherokee Indian
EMT-Basic



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What about HIV/AIDS?

Homosexuality versus obesity? Interesting question. I'd say condeming homosexuality while being grossly overweight is indeed hypocritical.
Firstly, both parties blame genetics. It seems daft for the anti-gay crowd to say genes play no part in homosexualty while blaming their own genes for their weight.
Secondly, whatever our stance on being gay might be, obesity (with a few rare exceptions) is a certainly sin - gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins and with good reason.
Thirdly, obesity is easier to control that homosexuality. If you consider being gay to be wrong, how could you 'cure' them? The debate rages on. Obesity on the other hand can be cured with diet, exercise, and not putting on so much weight in the first place.

Not to mention the other STD's, impacted bowels, and other such medical issues.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I book I recently read argues that homosexuals are the perfect target. They account for maybe 2-3% of the population, and have urges that most of us can't even relate to. The author goes as far as to say that churches are aggressive to them in an attempt to get life from judging based on our knowledge of good and evil (as opposed to the alternative of unconditional love).

In any case, I really don't think that churches should ban the obese (or anyone for that matter,) but I am just trying to say that if you ban homosexuals from the clergy because of their sin (which may or may not even be a sin in the first place), it's only fair to ban just about everyone else as well.

Obesity is the result of lack of restraint of a normal bodily function. Homosexuality is quite the opposite.

You do make a good point about how we as Christians are very selective and hypocritical in the sins we choose to condemn.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The sin of homosexuality is essentially a sin of gross (adverse) self-indulgence. In that vein, so too is the sin of gluttony which can manifest itself in obesity.

I think it can be argued that any sin is some form of self-indulgence - that is, indulging the sinful "fleshly" desires one possesses as a result of our flesh.

That some sins are easier to curb than others is probably a subjective thing altogether. One may not be prone to homosexual desires (for example) but have great difficulty with holding back their anger or lust or greed. We all have our peculiar sins that are more difficult to control than others - and for a variety of reasons. Additionally, it's not all that uncommon for one, via help from the Holy Spirit, to curb one behavior only to find another in its place ready to take the fore. Such is the nature I believe of spiritual growth and weeding out our various ills one at a time.

We ought not judge one another at all - let alone on the basis of the type of sin which manifests itself in a person. Nor ought we excuse or justify a person's type of sin on a comparative basis with another person's type of sin (obesity in one does not justify anger in another).

Those who serve as deacons and elders in a church, as another poster pointed out, ought to be those whose lives and behavior are above reproach and who in their personal lives exhibit a good deal of self-control (I Tim 5, Titus 1), particularly in those "outward sins" most obvious to all. Sins of the heart aren't discounted here, but given the discussion concerns outward behaviors, I think these passages address that sufficiently.

"Banning" one from the ministry on the basis of their type of sin would, imo be wrong - inasmuch as that would be bias, not proper judgment. That we are to judge one another's actions against the template we have in Scripture for proper behavior however is altogether proper and commanded. If one's behavior(s) disqualifies them from ministry, we are to judge accordingly as instructed and not permit them the office, yet treat them in love and admonish them in love to good works and not works of the flesh.

__________________

Neither of which are risks involved with being homosexual. Rather, they're risks involved with unsafe sex.

Homosexuals who don't have unsafe sex aren't at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

David.

__________________
David Brider

"...God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

Trying to follow Christ daily.

Condemning a homosexual person would be hypocritical because we are all sinners and are not our brother or sisters judge. Simply pointing out that sex between people of the same sex is prohibited by the Bible and the Church is not in and of itself hypocritical regardless of the sin the person making the statment is guilty of . It's merely a statement of reality.

I believe it has been made very clear by the Fathers and Saints of the Church that overeating or gluttony is one of the deadly sins. Sex with the same sex is also prohibited. If one suffers from either of these afflictions and has fallen into committing the said act it is best to turn to God in repentance and ask Him to forgive us our transgressions and give us the strength to fight temptation. If we fall every day we should turn to him in repentance every day.

In my Church Priests are married (unless they are monks) and marriage is between a man and women. Monks are prohibited from having sexual relations at all. One could have homosexual attractions and become a monk and then become ordained a priest. As a monk however they would be prohibited from having sex with anyone let alone another man and would be called on to struggle against lust.

While I don't believe fat people are inherently sinful. But, when someone misuses their body to the point of morbid obesity, this could definitely be considered wrong.

And, although I am against homosexuality, I will admit you have some good points. There are definitely priests filled with greed out there... A greed filled priest would be worse than a homosexual one, IMO. Homosexuality is a sin between that person and God... it really shouldn't affect anyone else. However, a greedy priest can be lead by his greed to cause his congregation to stumble.

Another argument many people use is that "children are best suited in homes with a mother and a father." ... This is hardly an argument against homosexual partnerships considering between divorce, death, and pregnancies outside of marriage in the first place, there are QUITE a few single parents out there. Because "both a mom and a dad would be better" should single parents have their children taken away?

Also... (long preface): I'm against gay "marriage." I don't think the government should have any right to change the definition of a religious term. However, the government bestowed legal rights of a married couple should be available to any couple. However, IMO, when some people say "it has to be called 'marriage' or else it's not worth anything" ... it seems that those people want to force the rest of us into an "all or nothing" decision... for which I would say "fine then... nothing."

However, people suggesting that gay marriage would be detrimental to heterosexual marriage are pretty ignorant as well, in my opinion. If we want to "protect marriage" ... how about figuring out why more than half of all heterosexual marriages are ending in divorce? Us heterosexuals need to fix our OWN attitude toward marriage if we're going to use "the sanctity of marriage" as an excuse to deny our brothers and sisters legal rights.

aaaand, that's about all I has to say about that.

__________________
John 17:1-26
Galations 5:19-25
1 Corinthians 13:1

Originally Posted by reginus

Which one is worse, obesity or homosexuality? I'm asking this because it the town I live in, many churches ban homosexuals from being able to serve in the clergy, in an attempt to "uphold God's word".

In terms of Bible verses, there are arguably up to about 10 verses relating to homosexuality. However, there are hundreds if not thousands about greed, to which I believe overeating can be attached to.

In terms of damage to society, it is unclear to what extent (if any) that homosexuals negatively affect us. I think both men and women can do just about every job necessary to raise children, etc. You could even go as far as to call homosexuals a nice counterbalance to overpopulation. However, the effects of overeating are much more obvious. Just think of how many of the starving that we could feed with all of the extra food that folks in modernized countries eat.

My question to the people who believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the clergy is this: should we ban the obese as well?

Thanks

They are both sins, so why should it be different? Because obese people may not be able to control what makes them obese. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of staying celibate, there is no drive that forces them to go out and have sex.

__________________

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.""
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (emphasis mine)

"You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul."
-Chef at the beginning of Ratatouille