Homosexuality: ethical methods of outreach?

[CShephard53]

Dearest Jawsmetroid.

I do wish you would stop addressing derogatory remarks at me, and address yourself to the argument, instead. We would get along better, even if, at the end of the day, we decided to part regarding each other as 'my friend, the enemy'.

I have never referred to you as the enemy, or in a derogatory way. I have simply stated how discussions should work. Arguments should never be decided by thinking emotionally, but logically.

So, why is homosexuality wrong? You simply restate the primitive, Biblical idea that it is in some way 'unnatural'.

I also gave details of how it is unnatural.

I want to know why it is unnatural, when it is clearly pleasurable for those that are inclined that way, due to the natural arrangement of nerve sensitivites in the various protruberances and orifices, when the disposition clearly has a genetic component, and when it is not confined to humans, but also evidenced in the 'natural' world, among many mammals.

Ask God. God also calls murder, adultery, and coveting a sin. Why are they against God's plans?

And then you say you know God's plan.

Yeah, because I've read the Bible and I listen to Him.

This is an outrageous conceit, and you, and any pastor that has put this idea into your head, should both hang your heads in proper shame. You do not know God's plan, you are not capable of knowing God's plan, and - I say this advisedly, considering the world as a whole and not just the bits I approve of - the fact that there are many homosexual humans, perhaps 10% pof the population, clearly indicates that homosexual humans have a significant part to play in God's plan.

What are you on about? God's plans are revealed in the Bible. I've read it and studied it for the past 7 years. Does that disqualify me from knowing it?

If homosexual acts are sinful, why isn't a homosexual nature just as sinful?

I have already answered this. If homosexual nature is sinful, then so is heterosexual nature: this is clearly not the case in the Bible.

Well, humour me. I have searched you posts for a rationale about this, and failed to find one. Perhaps it is split among many contributions, and the task of reconstructing it is just too much for my poor 2nd Rate Mind. If so, perhaps you would, for my benefit, bear with me and distil your thoughts on this matter into a nutshell so that I might have some hope of understanding them.

Homosexual attractions are not condemned in the Bible, that's my rational, the action is. In Romans 1 they are 'burning with lust', obsessed and fixated on their 'orientation', and having sex. How does that relate to the orientation except that they took it too far?

"People are allowed to do as they wish." Indeed they are, and so they should be. God, who gave us free will, clearly intended for us to exercise it. Why, then, is the conservative, evangelical, politically right-leaning section of Christianity so hell-bent on trying to make gays and lesbians second class citizens, denied the ordinary human rights to marry and found a family, that they take for granted for themselves, however sinful their heterosexual sex-lives may be?

I don't know, why don't you ask them? Start a thread. Why do politically conservative folks want to push their idea of morality on people? I'm guessing they'll cite 'improvement of society' as one of the reasons.

The idea that some whoring, adulterous, bigamous, diseased rapist should be allowed such rights, simply because he is heterosexual, and gays or lesbians in stable, loving, monogamous relationships shouldn't, just doesn't convince me one iota.

Um... okay.

But, if you have the arguments, and can marshall your thoughts and state them, I shall listen. And if they are good enough, I still stand to be persuaded.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I fail to see where I need to give argument, exactly, in any of your 'anticonservative' rant. I find it odd that you get on me for being divisive after said rant, but whatever.

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK, if we are agreed on being polite to each other, I will play ball. But one of the rules is this; it is never the protagonist that is inconsistent, or emotional, or illogical, it is always the argument. OK? That way no-one feels they are being called names, and we can address the issues without getting personal. Agreed?

Now, on the nature of sin. Essentially there are two ways of defining sin; anything the Bible forbids is one of them, and seems to be your chosen position. There are problems with this approach, however, as I am sure you are aware, if you have studied free of bias. One of them is that the Bible is not a text-book of morals. It is a record of the development, first of Judaism, and second of very early Christianity. Consequently, the Bible is often inconsistent about what it forbids; certain things were forbidden certain people at certain times by certain prophets with certain messages relating to certain situations. They do not always agree with one another, which is not altogether surprising when one considers the literature covers a 4,500 year long piece of history. Furthermore, the Church has continued to develop since the Bible was compiled, and some things the Bible forbids are now allowed, and some things the Bible allowed are now forbidden.

The second way is to try to understand what sin actually is, as opposed to taking for granted other and ancient people's views were on the matter. Sin, essentially, is what separates us from God. It is what prevents us from being godly. And the thing that separates us from God most effectively is our innate tendency to focus on ourselves, and what is in our interests, rather than others, and what is in their interests. All the seven deadly sins are 'ways of being' of this type - lust, avarice, sloth, pride, gluttony, wrath and envy. They are not acts, but predispositions to act, and to act selfishly. And it is the 'way of being' that promotes the decision to commit a sinful, immoral or criminal act. That is why the 'way of being' is central to the debate.

Now, we are agreed heterosexuality as a 'way of being' is not sinful, although, in combination with lust, it can lead to sins such as rape, paedophilia, adultery and such. But the normal expression of heterosexuality is in a loving relationship where both parties desire the physical pleasure of the other. Such a loving relationship, at it's best, is inherently unselfish, and therefore, not sinful. So far, so uncontroversial. But it seems to me, that many homosexual relationships are of the same mould. We are agreed a homosexual disposition, as a 'way of being', is not sinful, so how can it be that it's expression in a loving relationship, is? It is not automatically more selfish than a parallel heterosexual expression of love, so what is the important difference? There doesn't seem to be one, and that is where the inconsistency of the conservative attitude towards homosexual sex lies; and the danger in being so intent on finding a short-cut to heaven that the Bible is read as if it were a book of rules.

Christianity is more challenging than that. Christ gave us rules, it is true. But only two of them; 'love God', and 'love each other'. The denial to homosexuals of the solace of a long-term, committed, sexual relationship bolstered by Church sanction, and for no good reason, a privilege heterosexuals take for granted, seems to me directly to conflict with rule #2. Love involves fellow-feeling, sympathy, empathy, understanding, and these qualities, I find, are all sadly lacking in the conservative attitude to this issue. The reason is clear; they are scared they are wrong, that their simplistic beliefs are not the ticket to heaven they take them for, and that they will have to learn to think for themselves.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[CShephard53]

OK, if we are agreed on being polite to each other, I will play ball. But one of the rules is this; it is never the protagonist that is inconsistent, or emotional, or illogical, it is the argument. OK? That way no-one feels they are being called names, and we can address the issues without getting personal. Agreed?

I never said you were illogical, I said how you were thinking, thus, your analysis, was illogical. Semantics to be sure, so I'll agree.

Now, on the nature of sin. Essentially there are two ways of defining sin; anything the Bible forbids is one of them, and seems to be your chosen position.

A common misconception people make. I believe, as I said, that the Bible reveals the will of God, both in its laws and in its principles. I find Christianity to be more conceptional than it is a rulebook to follow. In that regard, that which goes against God's will is sin, not whatever the Bible forbids. Smoking would be perfectly acceptable if I went by that standard.

There are problems with this approach, however, as I am sure you are aware, if you have studied free of bias. One of them is that the Bible is not a text-book of morals.

Textbooks are boring, the Bible is not. So I agree.

It is a record of the development, first of Judaism, and second of very early Christianity. Consequently, the Bible is often inconsistent about what it forbids; certain things were forbidden certain people at certain times by certain prophets with certain messages.

If you want to go down that road, I suggest we start a thread in apologetics. I believe the Bible is perfectly consistent when you add everything together, at least in principle and in how everything fits.

They do not always agree with one another, which is not altogether surprising when one considers the literature covers a 4,500 year long piece of history. Furthermore, the church has continued to develop since the Bible was compiled, and some things the Bible forbids are now allowed, and some thing the Bible allowed are now forbidden.

Some things that God forbid under one covenant are no longer forbidden, largely because of Christ's death.

The second way is to try to understand what sin actually is, as opposed to taking for granted other and ancient people's views were on the matter. Sin, essentially, is what separates us from God. It is what prevents us from being godly. And the thing that separates us from God most effectively is our innate tendency to focus on ourselves, and what is in our interests, rather than others, and what is in their interests. All the seven deadly sins are 'ways of being' of this type - lust, avarice, sloth, pride, gluttony, wrath and envy. They are not acts, but predispositions to act. And it is the 'way of being' that promotes the decision to commit a sinful, immoral or criminal act. That is why the 'way of being' is central to the debate.

It is not homosexuality that is the 'way of being' that is wrong, however.

Now, we are agreed heterosexuality is not sinful, although, in combination with lust, it can lead to sins such as rape, paedophilia, adultery and such.

Then it is the lust, the coveting, that is wrong, not the desire.

But the normal expression of heterosexuality is in a loving relationship where both parties desire the physical pleasure of the other. Such a loving relationship, at it's best, is inherently unselfish, and therefore, not sinful. So far, so uncontroversial. But it seems to me, that many homosexual relationships are of the same mould.

Save that the act is expressly forbidden, they are.

We are agreed a homosexual disposition is not sinful, so how can it be that it's expression in a loving relationship, is? That is where the inconsistency of the conservative attitude towards homosexual sex lies; they are so intent on finding a short-cut to heaven that they read the Bible as if it were a book of rules.

The Bible, like it or not, does have rules in it, and homosexual activity is one of them. It is not loving to do that which is against God's will. Thus, when you say it is the expression of a loving relationship, you wrongly assume that the relationship is loving.

Christianity is more challenging than that. Christ gave us rules, it is true. But only two of them; 'love God', and 'love each other'.

Jesus gave plenty more rules than that. Do not lust, do not get angry with your brothers, how to address grievances, how to pray, the list could go on.

The denial to homosexuals of the solace of a long-term, committed, sexual relationship bolstered by Church sanction, and for no good reason, a privilege heterosexuals take for granted, seems to me directly to conflict with rule #2.

One with homosexual attractions does not need the company of a life partner of the same sex to be fulfilled, and if they do, it shows that they are not loving the other person, but fulfilling their own need. Such need is not God-given.

Love involves fellow-feeling, sympathy, empathy, understanding, and these qualities, I find, are all sadly lacking in the conservative attitude to this issue.

Then go take that up with conservatives. In case you did not see the 'indy' label under my username, I am not a conservative. I do not believe homosexual unions should be illegal, nor do I believe abortions should be illegal. God gave us free will, and that includes the free will to sin.

The reason is clear; they are scared they are wrong, that their simplistic beliefs are not the ticket to heaven they take them for, and that they will have to learn to think for themselves.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Which is why I am a theologian at heart. However, until homosexual activity is shown to be God's will, it is foolish to suggest that we know better than God. Such condemnation is not always expressed in the best way by my more conservative peers, but that is not an issue I am going to broach, as that discussion gets nowhere. I believe I witnessed the result of such an argument in Ethics and Morality yesterday... it was not pretty.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Ah, well, if you are truly convinced that you know God's Plan, and God's Will, I cannot help you. I would only say that I suspect that these are more subtle, more intricate, more comprehensive, more grand in scope and ambition, more elegant in expression and implementation, more intimate in motivation and resolution, than any mere human is capable of comprehending.

It seems to me, however, that God is not an arbitrary tryrant. He does not ban things, and good things at that, without reason. If one cannot find a good reason why good things are banned in the Bible, then it seems to me that one has to doubt the authenticity of the particular passage involved. And this is not a revolutionary concept; we are well aware in our own time that our various levels of spiritual stature, our degree of godliness, our proximity to the divine, distorts the accuracy of our ability to interpret specifics of God's Will. We see it always through the subjective lens of our individual and cultural context. I see no reason why this state of affairs should not have applied to the various authors of the Bible.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[CShephard53]

Ah, well, if you are truly convinced that you know God's Plan, and God's Will, I cannot help you. I would only say that I suspect that these are more subtle, more intricate, more comprehensive, more grand in scope and ambition, more elegant in expression and implementation, more intimate in motivation and resolution, than any mere human is capable of comprehending.

Why would God reveal His plans regarding morality and contentment if He doesn't expect us to understand them?

It seems to me, however, that God is not an arbitrary tryrant. He does not ban things, and good things at that, without reason.

Obviously not.

If one cannot find a good reason why good things are banned in the Bible, then it seems to me that one has to doubt the authenticity of the particular passage involved.

If we don't think it's got a good reason, then doubt if it's from God! That's not the way it works.

And this is not a revolutionary concept; we are well aware in our own time that our various levels of spiritual stature, our degree of godliness, our proximity to the divine, distorts the accuracy of our ability to interpret specifics of God's Will. We see it always through the subjective lens of our individual and cultural context. I see no reason why this state of affairs should not have applied to the various authors of the Bible.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

I look directly at cultural context on this issue. I'm surrounded by a culture that wants what it wants, and it wants it NOW. It doesn't care who it steps on in the process, it's America's way or the highway. And we'll complain until the cows come home until we get it. Culture doesn't care about God, it cares about what it wants. Homosexual 'advocates' haven't advocated antidiscrimination as much as that their behavior is acceptable. This standard will and already is leading to many, many problems, particularly in the political arena. All we can do is complain, to the point that we can't see where the problem really is. All we do is treat the symptoms.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Why would God reveal His plans regarding morality and contentment if He doesn't expect us to understand them?

The story of the Bible, as you know perfectly well, is of gradual revelation. Each generation gets different, and often greater, challenges, than the last. The morality that seemed objective and unassailable 100 years ago wouldn't do today. In other words, God does not reveal the totality of His Plan, or His Will. It is left for us, humanity, from our various historical vantage points, to work it out. Traditionally, that is precisely what prophets have done. These days, we rely on clerics - more bureaucratic, definately more conservative, institutionally biased, but, in the end, probably safer. Nevertheless, we should never forget that the best they have done and we can do is a partial picture.

If we don't think it's got a good reason, then doubt if it's from God! That's not the way it works.

Why on earth not? If God is good, and loves us, then the things He wants for us are good, and in our interests. If some misanthropic misery wants to ban something that is good, and in our interests, for no discernable reason, (and Christianity is littered with examples of puritanism, even before the label was invented) of course we should doubt that the ultimate author of the ban is God. Even if it's written into scripture.

Homosexual 'advocates' haven't advocated antidiscrimination as much as that their behavior is acceptable.

Is there a significant difference? If homosexual behaviour is considered acceptable, then there can be no discrimination. Discrimination persists only because so many people, and not just Christians, but also Jews and Moslems, consider homosexual expressions unacceptable. The fact is, societies like a minority to despise. It is time we rid ourselves of such a primitive inclination.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[CShephard53]

The story of the Bible, as you know perfectly well, is of gradual revelation. Each generation gets different, and often greater, challenges, than the last. The morality that seemed objective and unassailable 100 years ago wouldn't do today. In other words, God does not reveal the totality of His Plan, or His Will. It is left for us, humanity, from our various historical vantage points, to work it out. Traditionally, that is precisely what prophets have done. These days, we rely on clerics - more bureaucratic, definately more conservative, institutionally biased, but, in the end, probably safer. Nevertheless, we should never forget that the best we can do is a partial picture.

*blink* The morality of the Bible has never changed, as it is largely conceptual in nature.

Why on earth not? If God is good, and loves us, then the things He wants for us are good, and in our interests. If some misanthropic misery wants to ban something that is good, and in our interests, for no discernable reason, (and Christianity is littered with examples of puritanism, even before the label was invented) of course we should doubt that the ultimate author of the ban is God. Even if it's written into scripture.

Scripture tends to not bash that which isn't good, and I'd challenge you to give me any example outside of the one we're discussion to prove your point.

Is there a significant difference? If homosexual behaviour is considered acceptable, then there can be no discrimination. Discrimination persists only because so many people, and not just Christians, but also Jews and Moslems, consider homosexual expressions unacceptable. The fact is, societies like a minority to despise. It is time we rid ourselves of such a primitive reaction.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Except that homosexual acts are expressly condemned in the Bible. Such does not mean that there should be discrimination, only that it should be treated the same as any other sin. I don't discriminate or treat it differently.

 

[czali]

I think homosexuality is demonic.

But the most you can do is pray for them. I think it would be difficult to find a homosexual these days whio is not aware of the (true) Christian stance on these things. So, when their day comes to meet their maker.. at least they will have been warned. We have done our part.

Teach your children young, about what is right and wrong, about the problems caused by these types of lifestyle style choices, keep them close to God, teach them the bible before the public school teaches them error.. help to establish their faith and also, pray for your kids... our kids.

Homosexuality in my view, and the FORCED public acceptance of it, does do great harm to society. It opens the door to many perverted ideas of many other forms. Confusion is not of God.

 

[CShephard53]

I think homosexuality is demonic.

So you're saying that because I deal with homosexual temptations I have a demon? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

But the most you can do is pray for them. I think it would be difficult to find a homosexual these days whio is not aware of the (true) Christian stance on these things. So, when their day comes to meet their maker.. at least they will have been warned. We have done our part.

Oh? And what is the 'Christian stance on these things'?

Teach your children young, about what is right and wrong, about the problems caused by these types of lifestyle style choices, keep them close to God, teach them the bible before the public school teaches them error.. help to establish their faith and also, pray for your kids... our kids.

Yeah, while we're at it, let's teach them not to hate people, but to love others. While we're at it, let's teach them apologetics so they don't lose their faith when they get an atheist who asks even the most basic questions. Let's also teach them to think for themselves rather than brainwash them. Any other suggestions you have for how to raise any kids I might have? Yes, I'm angry with your suggestion, and I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps because you suggest I'm posessed.

Homosexuality in my view, and the FORCED public acceptance of it, does do great harm to society. It opens the door to many perverted ideas of many other forms. Confusion is not of God.

Nor is hatred.

 

[2ndRateMind]

*blink* The morality of the Bible has never changed, as it is largely conceptual in nature.

On the contrary, the morality of the Bible changes considerably over it's course. Consider the genocidal activities of the Jews, allegedly at God's behest, and the exhortation of Jesus to 'love your enemy, and do good to him who persecutes you'.

Scripture tends to not bash that which is(n't) good, and I'd challenge you to give me any example outside of the one we're discussion to prove your point.

There are a whole host; womens emancipation, divorce, wearing cloth of mixed fibres, and eating shellfish, for a start.

Except that homosexual acts are expressly condemned in the Bible. Such does not mean that there should be discrimination, only that it should be treated the same as any other sin. I don't discriminate or treat it differently.

I am not concerned with what you personally do, or don't do. Ultimately, that is your decision alone. I am concerned with a general attitude in Christianity towards homosexuals, and whether it has any moral force. It seems to me that the only thing that can give it moral force is a rational justification. The fact is, though, there isn't one. All these vocal objections to homosexuality ultimately come down to one thing; the Bible is against it, so God must be against it. This is a very naive position to take. It is acceptable for children, who need simplicity, but not mature, responsible, experienced, intelligent adults.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[epistemaniac]

wow... and you could lament

Ah, well, if you are truly convinced that you know God's Plan, and God's Will, I cannot help you.

if you can know what God's plan and will are, and yet question other's beliefs that they understand God’s plan and God’s will, what sets you apart? What hotline to God do you have? How can you criticize others for what you yourself do? I would much rather go with God's objective revelation, then a person who questions other's understanding of God's will and plan, and then states thier own views about what God's plan and will is while simultanously criticizing others for doing what they themselves do. In any case, to be derisive by saying something like "my understanding of God and His will is responsible, based on my experience as an adult, while your understanding of this situation is juvenile and immature" is not really any evidence that your position is in fact the correct position, nor is it any evidence that the maxim "what the bible says, God says" is false. IOW, why I should I think that your view as to what God's will and plan is, based apparently on your subjective extrabiblical opinions, is somehow more authoratative than the Scriptures themselves?

Blessings,
ken

 

[CShephard53]

On the contrary, the morality of the Bible changes considerably over it's course. Consider the genocidal activities of the Jews, allegedly at God's behest, and the exhortation of Jesus to 'love your enemy, and do good to him who persecutes you'.

See statements below your next quote.

There are a whole host; womens emancipation, divorce, wearing cloth of mixed fibres, and eating shellfish, for a start.

Oh, goodness. You're talking about a completely different issue than homosexuality, you are talking about what parts of the Bible are or are not still applicable. I'm starting a thread in Apologetics to discuss that, as it is off topic here.

I am concerned with a general attitude in Christianity towards homosexuals, and whether it has any moral force. It seems to me that the only thing that can give it moral force is a rational justification. The fact is, though, there isn't one.

There is never a rational justification for hatred of peoples.

All these vocal objections to homosexuality ultimately come down to one thing; the Bible is against it, so God must be against it. This is a very naive position to take. It is acceptable for children, who need simplicity, but not mature, responsible, experienced, intelligent adults.

Best wishes, 2RM.

First of all, you're oversimplifying my position. Second, you yourself are taking a niave approach to Bible interpretation. You somehow assume that because one person sees it in the Bible, their understanding of it is somehow automatically correct. This is very niave because people are generally uneducated when it comes to theology. Their opinion rules everything, not methodology or context.
The Bible is indeed against it, and thus, God is indeed against it. I challenge you to give me any examples where the Bible is against something that God is not.

 

[2ndRateMind]

wow... and you could lament (etc)

if you can know what God's plan and will are, and yet question other's beliefs that they understand God’s plan and God’s will, what sets you apart? What hotline to God do you have? How can you criticize others for what you yourself do?

Ken, darling, if you have bothered to read the whole thread, you would know that that my position is something like this: I do not know God's Will, and I do not know God's Plan. It seems to me these are things that take into account the subjectives of every individual dead, alive now, and to become alive. They are beyond the cognitive capacity of any human now existing. Therefore, I am sceptical around other's insistances that they do know God's Plan, and Will. And, given my particular position in history, and that I 'stand on the shoulders of giants', I have good reason for that scepticism.

I would much rather go with God's objective revelation, then a person who questions other's understanding of God's will and plan, and then states thier own views about what God's plan and will is while simultanously criticizing others for doing what they themselves do.

Then go with what persuades you. My intention is to provide an argument, in favour of liberality, not lay down moral law. This contrasts nicely with the conservatives, who want to lay down moral law, and not provide an argument.

In any case, to be derisive by saying something like "my understanding of God and His will is responsible, based on my experience as an adult, while your understanding of this situation is juvenile and immature" is not really any evidence that your position is in fact the correct position, nor is it any evidence that the maxim "what the bible says, God says" is false. IOW, why I should I think that your view as to what God's will and plan is, based apparently on your subjective extrabiblical opinions, is somehow more authoratative than the Scriptures themselves?

A key point. I did not mean to be derisive, merely contemptuous. What evidence do you have that the Bible is the unadulterated 'word of God'?

Blessings

Thankyou, and returned with bells and whistles.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Scripture tends to not bash that which is(n't) good, and I'd challenge you to give me any example outside of the one we're discussion to prove your point.

There are a whole host; womens emancipation, divorce, wearing cloth of mixed fibres, and eating shellfish, for a start.

Oh, goodness. You're talking about a completely different issue than homosexuality, you are talking about what parts of the Bible are or are not still applicable. I'm starting a thread in Apologetics to discuss that, as it is off topic here.

Actually, I was just answering your question, as I understood it to be. I thought you wanted examples of the Bible being against goodness.

There is never a rational justification for hatred of peoples.

I tend to agree.

First of all, you're oversimplifying my position. Second, you yourself are taking a niave approach to Bible interpretation. You somehow assume that because one person sees it in the Bible, their understanding of it is somehow automatically correct. This is very niave because people are generally uneducated when it comes to theology. Their opinion rules everything, not methodology or context.
The Bible is indeed against it, and thus, God is indeed against it. I challenge you to give me any examples where the Bible is against something that God is not.

I'm not sure I am oversimplifying your position, or taking a naive approach. As I summarised my position I said that some people thought that if the Bible was against it, God was against it. This is precisely the position you endorse. As for your challenge, try this:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed them on the way when they came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Samuel to Saul, as reported in 1 Samuel 15, 2-3

And this:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you.

Jesus of Nazereth, as reported in Luke 6, 27.

To get specific, the Bible position (pro-genocide, when it suits the Jews), and God's position, assuming JC to be the divine incarnation, are entirely opposed. God is against murdering nations; the Bible is not. To rephrase, to suit the challenge, this OT passage of scripture confounds any inclination towards mercy, while God, we are told, is perfectly merciful.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[ashout]

You have to take care to be a perfect Christian yourself(notice I didn't say a Christian that never sins) first. After that, I would approach it by letting them know that your a Christian and that you believe them to be in sin by being Homosexual, after that it's up to them and God whethor they are going to accept salvation or not. I havn't converted anyone myself(that I know of) but that's how I'll go about it.

 

[CShephard53]

Actually, I was just answering your question, as I understood it to be. I thought you wanted examples of the Bible being against goodness.

Of course I want examples of the Bible being against goodness, and if you would like to further discuss what you posted as I would, I started a thread about it because that doesn't really relate to ethical means of reaching out to homosexuals.

I tend to agree.

Oh, good.

I'm not sure I am oversimplifying your position, or taking a naive approach. As I summarised my position I said that some people thought that if the Bible was against it, God was against it. This is precisely the position you endorse.

As for your challenge, try this:



Samuel to Saul, as reported in 1 Samuel 15, 2-3

And this:



Jesus of Nazereth, as reported in Luke 6, 27.

To get specific, the Bible position (pro-genocide, when it suits the Jews), and God's position, assuming JC to be the divine incarnation, are entirely opposed. God is against murdering nations; the Bible is not. To rephrase, to suit the challenge, this OT passage of scripture confounds any inclination towards mercy, while God, we are told, is perfectly merciful.

Best wishes, 2RM

Of course I endorse what you just condemned. I think the answer you seek from me should be discussed in apologetics, not here, so the thread doesn't go off topic.

 

[Ave Maria]

Love the sinner, hate the sin. We must be loving towards them but we must also teach them why homosexual acts are wrong.

 

[CShephard53]

Love the sinner, hate the sin. We must be loving towards them but we must also teach them why homosexual acts are wrong.

I don't believe I've heard the Catholic perspective on that before. Care to share?

 

[BigBadWlf]

All this from taking single verses out of their context. What kind of proof do you have that Romans 1 does not do this?


Is viewing homosexual sex as a sin bigoted?

Is viewing racial equality as a sin racist?

 

[BigBadWlf]

<Staff Edit>

There are thousands of legitimately published studies providing evidence that sexual orientation is inborn.

The e are however no studies showing that homosexuality is a choice or the result ofhwo one was raised, or the result of ones relationship with either parent, or childhood sexual trauma, or any other familial factor. If you know of such a legitimately published study then please reference it so we may all read it.