• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Hey Who Believves In Homosexuality because i am christain post your beliefs!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Archived - Ethics & Morality' started by mnmcandiez, Jul 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mich

    Mich New Member

    2
    +0
     
  2. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Mich,

    I've seen that one before and laughed then too. Very funny. Gee, so much for not picking and choosing...

    but the response will be that since Jesus, there has been a new convenant nullifying the rules in the Hebrew scriptures. But if that's the case, why quote those scriptures at all for authority of the biblical mandate against homosexuality? Why not just stick with Romans and leave it at that? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Makes you wonder.
     
  3. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    Your saying that God is the basis for Ethics and Absolute Moral Good. Everything that contains God is Good, and vice versa, because God is pure good. Therefore, a person who rejects God will immediately reject goodness and therefore have evil, or suffering, appear in its place.
    One problem with this approach has been called the Euthyphro dilemma (from the discussion under that name in Plato's Dialogues). In brief, this puts forward two alternative positions that a religious person might take: either what God commands is right simply because God commands it, or God commands what is right because it is right. The first of these alternative, what might be called the fundamentalist position, seems to imply that God's command sets an arbitrary standard which we have no moral reason for following; we may indeed only follow it out of fear of the consequences of failing to do so. The second alternative is equally troubling for the religious person. It seems to imply that the divine command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethical standards are established independent of religious considerations. It also sets limits on divine omnipotence by suggesting that God is compelled to act in a certain way because that is what is ethical.

    Without God, a person can perform no good acts: All good acts are attributed to God but all bad acts are due to our rejection of God. However this is an inconsistency and is devoid of meaning when we think about the nature of a "good act". God wills us to do good acts. This must mean one of these two things,: either if God wills it, then it is good OR good acts are not defined by God.
    Obviously if God is the basis of Good acts then we must select the first option, because the second would imply the existence of another God, a creator of absolute morals and good acts which would indicate that the Christian God is not unique and other Gods exist.

    This leaves us with: God wills us to do what is good AND if God wills it, then it is good.
    Unfortunately for the Christian these statements destroy each other and can be deflated to "God wills us to do what God wills us to do", which is NOT an ethical statement and refutes the notion that God defines morals because indeed, He does not. If there are absolute morals then they must have been defined outside of God.

    1. If Christianity is true then 'God is good' is morally significant.
    2. If Christianity is true then God plays an explanatory role in ethics.
    3. If 'God is good' is morally significant, then moral goodness must be independent of God.
    4. If God plays an explanatory role in ethics, moral goodness must be dependent on God.
    Christianity is self contradictory and hence false. We can construct an exactly parallel argument substituting "God wills us to do what is good" with "God is Good" and by doing this we capture the challenge to theism posed by Plato's dilemma.
    In order for God to be Good then someone other than God must explain and define what Goodness is. Otherwise the word "good" would be devoid.
    God cannot be the basis for Goodness, the statement "God is good" is meaningless, "God wills us to do what is good" is therefore not true as "good" in this context is empty. The result is that if God exists, He does not define morality or goodness, it must come from a different source. If it comes from a different source then God did not create it.
    The Bible cannot be true in it's assertion that God is good and that all good acts are attributable to God and therefore, the Bible contains a clausal and significant contradiction. If the Bible was divinely inspired God contains a paradox and does not exist, or if it was divinely inspired God is not the basis for good acts or moral absolutes.
     
  4. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    What's the alternative to God? A person that sets himself/herself up as their own moral god? Doesn't work.

    This has got to be the shortest post of all 123 posts.
     
  5. tcampen

    tcampen Veteran

    +141
    Unitarian
    Private
    US-Others
    Having a basis for morality that is different than excusively god does not mean the alternative is necessarily setting "himself/herself up as their own moral god." I really don't understand where this false dichotemy came from. This is a straw man argument; an incorrect framing of the situation that there are only two possibilities. Determining the possible basis for morality, however, is infinitely more complex than that.

    Things such as society, community, culture, and tradition are all additional basis for morality that go way beyond the individual. I may not personally agree with a particular item society has deemed immoral, but being a responsible member of society, I still respect and follow that determination. (I can provide an example if you like.) I'm not following my own whims, nor necessarily referring to a supernatural entity as the sole basis for that morality, yet the standard of morality still exists and I follow it.

    So can we please move beyond this false dichotemy and try to see the larger picture?
     
  6. Polish Guy Wo Loves God

    Polish Guy Wo Loves God New Member

    48
    +1
    Catholic
    I HATE HOMOSEXUALS!! Well, hate is too strong a word but I do believe that they shall be condemed to hell for, in the "Sanctity of Sex" passage in Leviticus?, it states that "No man shall lay with another as they would with a woman, such a thing is an abomination." There it is,black and white, God is against homosexuality(If he wanted homosexual, he never would have created Eve)
     
  7. Philosoft

    Philosoft Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

    +170
    Atheist
    I believe you.
    No, "hate" is the word you're looking for.
    And if he didn't want homosexuals, they wouldn't exist.
     
  8. Icystwolf

    Icystwolf Well-Known Member

    +14
    Calvinist
    Polish Guy, do you really love God?
    Your actions are clearly unfounded, you rate homosexual sin higher than all sins. I personally find, the sexual sin that makes me tick is adultery, rather than homosexuality.

    God still loves all people, and he wants to give them time to repent.

    I've also read up on homosexuality whilst I was away, and I've pulled up a couple of interesting facts.

    In the 1970's when they took out homosexuality as a mental disease, there just so happens to be a right to life movement for homosexuals. Then in 1995, they speculated the gay gene which was immediately accepted, but when the scientists said it would be possible in future to remove the gay gene, then they pulled back and the public said it there was no gay gene. And in 2000, the report of the doctor that removed homosexuals out of the mental list was under another review. Currently it's more likely it's being pulled out.

    So upon all those facts, what does that mean? The research on homosexuality is clearly based on public opinion, and the movement rather than actual facts. In otherwords, they bring out what people want to hear, rather than the truth.

    Also, another statistic, in a research done, 150 gay couples. There wasn't a single relationship that lasted more than 5yrs. Most bombed out around a year.

    There is good news though, the causes of homosexuality is based on the child unable to mould a manhood, and hence takes the examples of his sisters and mother. The report for this is now widly supported by therapists, because of the wall placed by the public that restricted them to be able to help their traumas whilst the gay person was young.

    Homosexuality should be treated as a sin, but no greater sin than all other sins.

    And also, no one is born gay, it's a prove fact and it's finding has been out for over 5yrs now...but it wasn't out in News, which means no one knows about it!
     
  9. Icystwolf

    Icystwolf Well-Known Member

    +14
    Calvinist
    Obviously you shouldn't exist either, or me or anyone

    God loves all, and hence gives us time to repent. A sin is a sin, and theres no avoiding it by making God change because he won't. God isn't the God we want, he is there from the beginning and forever. There is a good saying:

    God Is God And You Are Not

    which means, God is God, and you're not the one that has more power to tell what God does, but God does.
     
  10. Polish Guy Wo Loves God

    Polish Guy Wo Loves God New Member

    48
    +1
    Catholic
    To all who answer my posts(except philosoft), you see to be making me out as some sort of ogre, who neither loves or fells anything for anyone, including my God, Jesus Christ. This is untrue, yet I stick by what I wrote. If God is so forgiving(and I believe he is), then why did he level Sodom? They practiced homosexuality, yet he could have just turned his said and said "Nope, not destroyin' em". But he didn't. He leveled Sodom and turned Lot's wofe into salt. So, why should we say that homosexuals are not deserving of a little religous criticism? I mean, they practice the same things as the men of Sodom(hence the term sodomy). So, there is my answer. Hate me, love me, I don't care, my love for God is eternal.
     
  11. Kyubi-no-Youko

    Kyubi-no-Youko Well-Known Member

    52
    +0
    How does that prove the research on homosexuality is clearly based on public opinion rather than facts? If you stand by this, then you admit your own research is biased. I could say people who offer anti-homosexual evidence are doing so based on public opinion just as easily as you could say people who offer pro-homosexual evicence are doing so based on public opinion. It gets us no where.

    Science never tries to prove anything and is (or should remain) unbiased.

    If no one knows about it...how do you? Where did you get this information from? Please cite your sources. It has never been proven that no one is born gay. Nor has it been proven 100% that a person is not born gay. It *has* been proven that there are genetic factors-meaning it may not be 100% biological/genetic, but that it does play a role in determining sexual orientation.

    Also, the second paragraph is just ridiculous. What report? What study? I keep hearing claims of this, but any studies on environmental factors (including gender specific toys, games, who the child associates with, etc..) have come up as faulty and inconclusive. This only feeds into the gay male=feminine gay female=masculine stereo type. How do you account for the many gay men who were raised by masculine fathers in Christian homes and played with war toys?

    As I said earlier, I think there are different ways a person can 'become' homosexual. Strictly environmental/trauma can be one of them. A heterosexual who participates in homosexuals acts or has themselves convinced they are homosexual is not a homosexual though. Just as a homosexual who participates in heterosexual acts or has themselves convinced they are heterosexual is not. It is not the act that makes one homosexual or heterosexual.
     
  12. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    Your right Leviticus does say that. It also says:
    Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
    Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
    Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
    Psychics are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) so much Dionne Warwick’s friends
    People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
    Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

    Do you also follow these rules to the letter?
    If you don’t why not? They are after all written as laws in the Bible.
     
  13. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    I know the study you’re talking about. It had the major flaw of only speaking to people under the age of 25. It’s tough to find a 30 year relationship when you limit the study like that.
     
  14. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married

    First off I’m a therapist and I think that notion is pure drivel. A quick survey of my associates found that most thought drivel was far too nice of a word to describe that nonsense.

    There is no, repeat no, evidence to suggest a connection between adult homosexuality and any form of childhood trauma.

    Good luck: I have asked icystwolf to cite his sources before and was ignored.

    I can tell you that most likely he is trying to validate his prejudices by using the works of Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron is a conservative Christian who “researches” homosexuality. He cannot get published in any medical or psychiatric journal because he has so often falsified his research. You can read up on him and his “research” here:
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
     
  15. Polish Guy Wo Loves God

    Polish Guy Wo Loves God New Member

    48
    +1
    Catholic
    Jedi, I can't believe what im hearing from you! You are attacking every fundamental belief a Christian has!!(except for alcohol, that is a little extreme). Sexual intercourse in humans is to procreate, and any attempt to thwart that is not adherent to what God planned for humanity. You have hearsd of Onanism, haven't you? That's basically what you advocating by saying contraception is O.K.
     
  16. Icystwolf

    Icystwolf Well-Known Member

    +14
    Calvinist

    When I said that everyone dosen't know, I was meaning in jargon that majority of the world dosen't know, because they're usually glued to the TV or computer.

    And I got these sources by a researcher in the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

    These sources are not on the web, because obviously research that isn't finished isn't publicised, but the previous report is being scrapped as we speak.

    The onset of Homosexuality is found to be either the presence of an abusive father or an absence a father. But that dosen't mean that if you didn't have a father when you were young, you'd be gay, it's just one of the ways of identifying the causes of homosexuality.

    Clearly, the research isn't making any public announcements, because it'll cause more conflicts into actually getting real treatment for homosexuals who are having childhood traumas. It's said quite clearly, that unless the world and media was ready to face the facts, then they'll never release their report to the public, even if the findings are finished.

    I do feel pity for them after being enlightened with some facts, and these facts come from real gay men that have been degaied. They still have their accent, but they've lost their lust to their desired.

    These homosexuals have lost their manhood or womenhood, so they're trapped and unable to get assistance to help them out.

    I think Gay is an oxymoron.
     
  17. Icystwolf

    Icystwolf Well-Known Member

    +14
    Calvinist
    Not ignoring,
    just busy...
     
  18. Icystwolf

    Icystwolf Well-Known Member

    +14
    Calvinist
    Statistics might point that direction.

    Also, since your a therapist...this is off topic, but do you think that a double personality exists?

    I heard there is also a therapist split opinion on that too!
     
  19. Volos

    Volos Well-Known Member

    +164
    Pagan
    Married
    and still we wait for ANY sort of reference
     
  20. Teh Wiccan

    Teh Wiccan The Balance Of Passion

    333
    +12
    Pagan
    I believe free choice and equal rights should be given to all. Treating people like lesser beings because they act different is not really a kind act.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...