homosexuality

[kod]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Kod..I'm going to do an indepth study on th Pentateuch, so I'll let you know. I'm willing to bet that my view will be more the vindicated.

Trouble is Louis, I don't bet - I think gambling is a sin!    

 

[kod]

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
The only things that bother me about homosexuals is there right to say...we are sinners and we desrve to have rights. I don't see any alcolics asking for rights, nor any liars, murderors...ect...WHy should THEY think that rights should be given to sin? Doesn;'t ,make any sense to me.
Does this make sense???
GE

You raise a very interesting point.  Many Christians who believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful, still support gay rights.  Adoption is a very controversial one.  Let me give you an example which appeared in our local paper (Australia).  A member of parliament has lived with her female partner for 10 years. In that time she has contributed financially and emotionally to the children's welfare.  The mother of the children would like this woman to be able to adopt the children if anything happened to her. Would you deny her that right?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Sin is an act of the will. Something that happens before one can will it cannot be a sin."

no, thoughts are the same. Your thought of lust is a sin, just like the action is a sin. Your thought of homosexuality is a sin just as the act is a sin.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Sin is an act of the will. Something that happens before one can will it cannot be a sin."

no, thoughts are the same. Your thought of lust is a sin, just like the action is a sin. Your thought of homosexuality is a sin just as the act is a sin.

Thoughts can be an act of the will. If someone is tempted and then continues to think about sinning, this is a sin. If someone is tempted but forces one's attention onto something else, it is not a sin.

 

[LouisBooth]

"If someone is tempted but forces one's attention onto something else, it is not a sin."

I'd say when the action itself is wrong and sinful, Christ said the thought was too...ie the adultery case

 

[SUNSTONE]

Thoughts are not sin, but if you dwell upon them it will manifest into sin. In other words, if you think on lust its just a matter of time before you commit the act.
Jesus was just showing a point that they were not clean on the inside, so they were definitly not clean on the outside.

This would be like me becoming Christian and thinking about drugs and sex. "oh how sweet those things are, nice and tasty but now I am a Christian, and I must stay in this prison, but I shall think on the dark side of life"
The battle is in are mind, think on things above, not on your past.

 

[seebs]

I think there's a certain question of how you're thinking about the undesirable impulses. If you spend all your time trying to enumerate all the specific sexual things you think might satisfy your lust, that's bad. If you spend a bit of time trying to figure out why lust is being such a problem for you, maybe that's good.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If someone is tempted but forces one's attention onto something else, it is not a sin."

I'd say when the action itself is wrong and sinful, Christ said the thought was too...ie the adultery case

I have addressed that. I was the one who quoted scripture and walked through it. Of course, since you have explicitly cited any scripture, you may be refering to some personal revelation that Christ gave only to you. Otherwise, my answers are satisfactory.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Otherwise, my answers are satisfactory."

The passage clearly says that the pharisee had sinned by thinking about sleeping with that women. The though counts, sorry to tell ya FOD. mat 5 shows us the thought of sinning and wanting to do it is sin.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Otherwise, my answers are satisfactory."

The passage clearly says that the pharisee had sinned by thinking about sleeping with that women. The though counts, sorry to tell ya FOD. mat 5 shows us the thought of sinning and wanting to do it is sin.

The passage was part of the Sermon on the Mount, so Jesus was talking to His disciples, not the Pharisees.

Are you reading my posts? I quoted Matthew 5 and described the distinction between willed thoughts and an instantaneous desire. If a man sees a woman and thinks, "She's hot," and then directs his attention away from sex, he does not sin. If he instead starts to think about having an affair with her, he has commited adultery in his heart and has sinned.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The passage was part of the Sermon on the Mount, so Jesus was talking to His disciples, not the Pharisees."

Exactly. He was refering to this is how a pharisee acts. Read the passage for yourself.

"If a man sees a woman and thinks, "She's hot," and then directs his attention away from sex, he does not sin. "

What I should also point is that is a natural attraction, homosexuality is quite unnatural as well, and thus also sinful in thought and in deed.

"If a man sees a woman and thinks, "She's hot," and then directs his attention away from sex"

This has nothing to do with the act of lust. Being attacted to a man has everything to do with homosexuatlity and the action, being attacted to a women does not because it is natural. homosexuatlity is not.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The passage was part of the Sermon on the Mount, so Jesus was talking to His disciples, not the Pharisees."

Exactly. He was refering to this is how a pharisee acts. Read the passage for yourself.

"If a man sees a woman and thinks, "She's hot," and then directs his attention away from sex, he does not sin. "

What I should also point is that is a natural attraction, homosexuality is quite unnatural as well, and thus also sinful in thought and in deed.

"If a man sees a woman and thinks, "She's hot," and then directs his attention away from sex"

This has nothing to do with the act of lust. Being attacted to a man has everything to do with homosexuatlity and the action, being attacted to a women does not because it is natural. homosexuatlity is not.

Okay, now I understand what you think, and your previous posts are making sense. However, I still disagree. Attraction to someone other than one's wife is just as much an attraction to sin as homosexual attraction. To make a distinction between the two is dishonest.

 

[seebs]

I think it's interesting that "unnatural" is still being used as a description, although it's unclear how unnatural relates to sin; the only usage I can find Biblically suggests that God did something "unnatural" when He grafted the Gentiles onto the Jews for purposes of His new covenant. Certainly, it's been adequately shown (we had quite the thread over in Apologetics) that homosexuality "occurs in nature". Since the metaphysical sense is used at least once of something God did, I think it's pretty clear that merely being "unnatural" is no testimony to whether something is sin or not.

I stick with foolsparade: Temptation is temptation, and creating an artificial distinction serves no purpose other than to make it easier for us to feel that we are somehow superior to those who suffer temptations we ourselves do not.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Attraction to someone other than one's wife is just as much an attraction to sin as homosexual attraction. To make a distinction between the two is dishonest."

Now you're on sticky ground. One is not inherently sinful, for if a man is single that attraction is okay, but no matter what the homosexual attraction is sinful.

"Since the metaphysical sense is used at least once of something God did, I think it's pretty clear that merely being "unnatural" is no testimony to whether something is sin or not."

*sigh* seebs, again you're bringing up things I have already addressed. Nature itself is fallen, thus you can't say it is as God created it. So this its in nature is a faulty argument to a christian. Thus homosexuality is unnatural, sinful and wrong.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Attraction to someone other than one's wife is just as much an attraction to sin as homosexual attraction. To make a distinction between the two is dishonest."

Now you're on sticky ground. One is not inherently sinful, for if a man is single that attraction is okay, but no matter what the homosexual attraction is sinful.

So now it's just heterosexual singles who can have sinless attractions. The problem is that heterosexual singles cannot act on their attractions either (at least in the short term) without sinning (fornication). Just admit that you're wrong on this point and we can stop wasting our time.

"Since the metaphysical sense is used at least once of something God did, I think it's pretty clear that merely being "unnatural" is no testimony to whether something is sin or not."

*sigh* seebs, again you're bringing up things I have already addressed. Nature itself is fallen, thus you can't say it is as God created it. So this its in nature is a faulty argument to a christian. Thus homosexuality is unnatural, sinful and wrong.

So when you refer to what is natural, it has nothing to do with Nature and everything to do with something that exists in only in your mind and allegedly in God's mind. If God meant that to be natural, why didn't He make it that way?

 

[seebs]

I think it's pretty clear that this is an issue on which people come to various conclusions based on upbringing and teaching. It is, of course, possible to dismiss those who disagree with you for various reasons; one might even accuse them of not being Christians, as has been popular during many previous debates within the faith.

In the end, I think all we can say with certainty is that a lot of people are pretty cruel to gays, and a lot of gays seem to be pretty consistent in saying they don't want to be gay, and would change if they could... and those people, whatever anyone may think, are suffering, and it is our job as Christians to bring them comfort, and help them as best we can.

 

[LouisBooth]

"So now it's just heterosexual singles who can have sinless attractions. "

One is natural the other isn't

"If God meant that to be natural, why didn't He make it that way?"

Read genesis. He did. Then Adam fell and the world changed as well.

Seebs, I do agree that many people are very cruel to homosexuals simplying because they are quite forward with people about their sin. We should accept them, but not their sin. That's not always a very easy thing for a human to do. Not to compare but the same usually goes for a ex-con, someone who has broken our trust, etc...Its hard to be Godly and not human.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So now it's just heterosexual singles who can have sinless attractions. "

One is natural the other isn't

"If God meant that to be natural, why didn't He make it that way?"

Read genesis. He did. Then Adam fell and the world changed as well.

Seebs, I do agree that many people are very cruel to homosexuals simplying because they are quite forward with people about their sin. We should accept them, but not their sin. That's not always a very easy thing for a human to do. Not to compare but the same usually goes for a ex-con, someone who has broken our trust, etc...Its hard to be Godly and not human.

Jesus does not seem to make the distinctions that you do. He treats all sinful acts equally. The distinction between "natural" sin and "unnatural" sin is yours alone.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Jesus does not seem to make the distinctions that you do. He treats all sinful acts equally. The distinction between "natural" sin and "unnatural" sin is yours alone.

My guess is that he's referring to Paul's description in Romans 1... but I think that the usage of "unnatural" there is not the same as the sense in which Louis thinks homosexuality is "unnatural". I figure, if God can do something "unnatural", then unnatural does not imply sinful.

Catholic teachings include a distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin, which I'm not entirely clear on. I don't think it's just a question of "natural", though; "missing Mass" is a potential mortal sin, and I don't think that's because it's "unnatural".

I tend to assume that what makes the sin serious is your understanding and attitude towards God, not the specific action in question.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by seebs
My guess is that he's referring to Paul's description in Romans 1... but I think that the usage of "unnatural" there is not the same as the sense in which Louis thinks homosexuality is "unnatural". I figure, if God can do something "unnatural", then unnatural does not imply sinful.

Catholic teachings include a distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin, which I'm not entirely clear on. I don't think it's just a question of "natural", though; "missing Mass" is a potential mortal sin, and I don't think that's because it's "unnatural".

I tend to assume that what makes the sin serious is your understanding and attitude towards God, not the specific action in question.

While Louis' distinction of natural and unnatural comes from Romans (probably), his claim that homosexual attraction is a sin is based on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. During the sermon on the mount, Jesus treats all sins equally and does not make any distinctions. It is therefore wrong to introduce our own distinctions when interpreting His sermon.