- Mar 27, 2007
- 35,422
- 4,284
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Feces are involved.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know what really kills me? Is that it's a rarity that a discussion comes up about LGBT issues without someone having to throw in "BUT THEIR NAUGHTY BITS DON'T FIT TOGETHER!!!!" I mean, we could be talking about how gay men throw the most bombastic cocktail parties and someone would respond with, "but they're not made to have sex naturally!" I mean, why are people so fixated on the genitals and what we do with them? It's really an unhealthy preoccupation. Like people who always have to talk about feces.
Have you actually researched it?
It is actually more illogical to be an atheist. :o
Maybe we've made Christianity so complicated that we can't see the simple message of the Bible any more ...like the being unable to see the forest for the trees analogy. When you think about it, loving others and therefore not condemning them for being different to 'us' might just be that simple command that Jesus asked of us. We might not be able to relate to the poor but we are to care for them anyway. We might not be able to relate to the sick but we are to care for them anyway. We might not be able to relate to a 'criminal' (I hate labels, we're all human) but we are to care enough about them to visit them in prison anyway. We might not be able to relate to 'gay' people but we are to acknowledge that they ARE 'gay and we are to therefore accept them 'as is'. To 'these the least of my brethren' certainly implies that we are to show love ...ESPECIALLY to those who we normally don't relate to and might normally shy away from. Perhaps that's all that is required of us..
If this were true, we would not see other animal species engaging in homosexual behaviour. As it happens, there are over 1500 observed instances, from mammals to birds to reptiles to fish, even to invertebrates.Because human homosexual sexual contact is not an "evolved" anatomical condition. The proven natural contact IS heterosexual.
An atheist rejects the presupposition that deities exist. Since there is a suspicious lack of evidence supporting said presupposition, how is it more illogical to be an atheist?Have you actually researched it?
It is actually more illogical to be an atheist. :o
They believe it, they just don't believe it is all literal, nor that it all applies today. They believe Genesis 1 is true, they just don't necessarily believe it is literally true.As far as accepting the Bible as fact or not, this is something you should reconsider. Ask yourself this, if you don't believe all of the Bible, then how can you believe ANY of it is credible? That is illogical. If you can't believe the OT, how cant you believe the NT, expecially considering that the OT is the preface for the events in the NT that surround Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
-Where
You responded to this premise.If this were true, we would not see other animal species engaging in homosexual behaviour. As it happens, there are over 1500 observed instances, from mammals to birds to reptiles to fish, even to invertebrates.
Further, that you say "the proven natural contact...." undermines your point: few biological theories pertaining to sexuality have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and none concern sexual orientation.
"Because human homosexual sexual contact is not an "evolved" anatomical condition. The proven natural contact IS heterosexual."
The topic is human not animal.
Since almost 90% of the world's population believes in a "deity", then the atheist's position is illogical and requires more faith to believe in it.An atheist rejects the presupposition that deities exist. Since there is a suspicious lack of evidence supporting said presupposition, how is it more illogical to be an atheist?
My point was, among other things, that your "homosexuality is unnatural" implication was false: homosexuality is clearly evident in nature. It couldn't be more natural if you tried.You responded to this premise.
"Because human homosexual sexual contact is not an "evolved" anatomical condition. The proven natural contact IS heterosexual."
The topic is human not animal.
More to the point, homosexuality is an evolved trait (it arises from sexually dimorphic kin selection; notice how it only occurs in social species), and heterosexuality, while being the norm, is not the "correct" sexual orientation: it's simply one of many.
First, mass belief does not dictate reality, nor does it make a claim any more likely to be true.Since almost 90% of the world's population believes in a "deity", then the atheist's position is illogical and requires more faith to believe in it.
Second, that statistic is not correct: 90% of people are theists. The deity that Hindus worship is not the same deity worshipped by followers of the Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahá'í, etc), nor is it the same as the deity worshipped by Sikhs, etc.
Third, what on Earth does the ratio of theists to atheists have to do with the logical validity/soundness of atheism? I'm quite baffled.
Again, the premise concerns humans NOT animals. Show me where "evolution" has morphed humans physically to be homosexuals.My point was, among other things, that your "homosexuality is unnatural" implication was false: homosexuality is clearly evident in nature. It couldn't be more natural if you tried.
No, since "evolution" has no part in homosexual behavior among humans then it is a learned behavior.More to the point, homosexuality is an evolved trait (it arises from sexually dimorphic kin selection; notice how it only occurs in social species), and heterosexuality, while being the norm, is not the "correct" sexual orientation: it's simply one of many.
So are you saying that the minority is correct? Have you actually examined the reasons why the majority is theistic?First, mass belief does not dictate reality, nor does it make a claim any more likely to be true.
Yep!!! Absolutely correct, however, they still believe in a deity whether it is the true deity or not.Second, that statistic is not correct: 90% of people are theists. The deity that Hindus worship is not the same deity worshipped by followers of the Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahá'í, etc), nor is it the same as the deity worshipped by Sikhs, etc.
I am sure that you are baffled. God made himself known to everyone so simply, although some have the wrong belief, most do know that there is a higher power. Atheists, on the other hand, stand alone only believing in themselves with no basis to fall back on. It does take a lot more faith to not believe than it does to believe.Third, what on Earth does the ratio of theists to atheists have to do with the logical validity/soundness of atheism? I'm quite baffled.
Homosexuals do not have any physical characteristic unique to their orientation. Nonetheless, there are a number of biological differences between straight men and gay men. This article may help.Again, the premise concerns humans NOT animals. Show me where "evolution" has morphed humans physically to be homosexuals.
Homosexuality is likely a mixture of both biological and environmental factors; it is no more noteworthy than one's hair colour or accent.No, since "evolution" has no part in homosexual behavior among humans then it is a learned behavior.
Where on Earth did I say anything like that?So are you saying that the minority is correct?
Yes, pondering theological distributions is a pastime of mine. It is quite telling that a child will almost certainly adopt the religious status of one's parents (and, to a lesser extent, culture). For example, the vast majority of adult Christians were born to Christian parents and raised in a Christianised culture. The same can be said for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, Sikhism, etc. Conversion rates amongst adults is quite low.Have you actually examined the reasons why the majority is theistic?
Ah, I see. The problem is that this is just a caricature of the atheist, and an unfair one at that. First, some definitions:Yep!!! Absolutely correct, however, they still believe in a deity whether it is the true deity or not.
I am sure that you are baffled. God made himself known to everyone so simply, although some have the wrong belief, most do know that there is a higher power. Atheists, on the other hand, stand alone only believing in themselves with no basis to fall back on. It does take a lot more faith to not believe than it does to believe.
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to poverty, poor health, and criminality?
I certainly disagree with the fire-and-brimstone approach of some Christians here in regards to homosexuality, but I also disagree that homosexuality is something which ought to escape discussion, debate, and even a little criticism from time to time.
I understand the impatience of homosexuals in this forum, but labeling anyone who disagrees as a "bigot" does not invite moderate and reasoned debate.
I believe that homosexuality, generally speaking, is innate. Therefore, if one is 'gay' then they are 'gay' through no choosing of their own. Christians need to ACCEPT this fact and show love to homosexuals EVEN IF THEY CANNOT RELATE TO HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE. When a Christian shows (unconditional) love to a homosexual he/she is showing love to Jesus as per the scriptures.
You obviously misunderstood my point or I didn't explain myself too well. What I THOUGHT that I made clear was the notion that Christians need to extend love to those - ESPECIALLY those - to whom they find it difficult to relate. In THIS particular case we're discussing homosexuality.
I believe that homosexuality, generally speaking, is innate. Therefore, if one is 'gay' then they are 'gay' through no choosing of their own. Christians need to ACCEPT this fact and show love to homosexuals EVEN IF THEY CANNOT RELATE TO HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE. When a Christian shows (unconditional) love to a homosexual he/she is showing love to Jesus as per the scriptures.
I have never seen an issue so much under discussion by Christians than the topic of homosexuality. The topic itself has almost become some kind of an anti-religion and has taken on a life of its own. I personally find this very disturbing given that the REAL sins of the world - human greed, human stupidity, for instance - appear to pale in significance as compared to homosexuality. Many Christians have become so obsessed with homosexuality that it's become a festering sore. Very disturbing indeed!
I agree that not everyone that disagrees with the issue of homosexuality is a bigot. But I do believe that they ARE misinformed as well as ignorant of the facts ...both the biological and the scriptural facts. I agree with you that we should invite moderate and reasoned debate on the issue but this cannot occur when total ignorance of the issue underpins the views of many ...especially the views of the 'anti-gays'.
KCKID said:I agree that not everyone that disagrees with the issue of homosexuality is a bigot. But I do believe that they ARE misinformed as well as ignorant of the facts ...both the biological and the scriptural facts. I agree with you that we should invite moderate and reasoned debate on the issue but this cannot occur when total ignorance of the issue underpins the views of many ...especially the views of the 'anti-gays'.
So people who disagree are ignorant?
Oh please ...once again you misunderstand me. By 'ignorant' I mean in regard to one's lack of knowledge or understanding on an issue. Christians (too many) seem to believe that a homosexual DECIDES out-of-the-blue to become a homosexual at a particular point in time. They seem to believe that a homosexual is really a deviant heterosexual. (?)
While I obviously don't know every person in the world who claims to be a homosexual I speak for the 'genuine article' ...right? The 'genuine article' are those who have felt an attraction for the same gender since as far back as they remember. And there are thousands and thousands of them in every country in the world. (it seems that Satan even gets to those who have never even heard of him ...nor ever will!)
Later this attraction becomes a 'sexual' attraction toward the same gender. In other words, this sexual orientation was not chosen. It's simply a part of the make-up of that person. It's who they are. And really, it should NOT even be a big deal!
But ...Christians (too many) don't acknowledge that fact ...and it IS a fact. So, they are therefore IGNORANT of the facts. The most irritating thing is that these 'ignorant' Christians (too many) try to come across as 'experts' on the issue. They believe they have it all figured out - NO ONE does! - and they attack 'the genuine article' with some rather obscure and ambiguous texts from the Bible as if to 'shame' a homosexual into becoming 'straight'. Ludicrous!
SO, as I stated ...ignorance underpins the views of many 'anti-gay' Christians. Therefore no effective debate on the issue can ever be forthcoming. And, that's tragic since many people are hurt and continue to be hurt because of the ignorance of (too many) Christians.
KCKID has spoken.
David and Jonathan would beg to differ.
Monognaous homosexual relationships isnt in the Bible
It wasn't monogamous, since he was married to both Michal and Jonathan (Saul, to David: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain"). Notice also that Samuel considered David's homosexual marriage to be equal his heterosexual marriage.Dear Wiccan_Child,
David was married to Michal, how could his loving relationship with Jonathan which we are told was in spirit be sexual or monogamous?
I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me, it only belies your own prejudices. That said, I am well aware of the story.I would assume you understand what homosexual and monogamous means and you didnt know the story well enough, except that all this has been debated frequently and at length before.
Excuse my sarcasm but he wasn’t married to a little black mouse called ‘squeaky’ either, no mention of either. Sorry where does the story say his relationship with Jonathan was marriage?It wasn't monogamous, since he was married to both Michal and Jonathan (Saul, to David: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain").
I notice there wasn’t even a marriage between David and anyone expect Michael at the time of his deep friendship with Jonathan.Notice also that Samuel considered David's homosexual marriage to be equal his heterosexual marriage.
Sorry but I don’t seen any evidence from the story to support what you claim and all I have said about Jonathan and David’s friendship and his marriage to Michal has been said before.I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me, it only belies your own prejudices. That said, I am well aware of the story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?