Homosexuality

[intricatic]

I can't imagine a situation where greed is beneficial for anything but selfish purposes. So, no.

What are we considering beneficial to mean, then?

Think about Donald Trump. Now imagine that his money was being spent to give low-level workers decent wages.

Imagine the world as it existed when people lived in communal tribes and nomadic bands. They were able to survive--in the tundra, in the desert--for thousands of years.

This society we have today, where people can just starve to death on the streets, only started coming about when others started acquiring more than they needed to survive. The greedy may see greed as beneficial, but their neighbors, dying of dysentery, know better.

So it's a socialist concept? Isn't that a bit envious? I barely make enough to get by, some weeks I don't, but you won't see me complaining that I don't make as much as the better trained office people.

Personally, I'd prefer if society became more agrarian based. It'd be easier to see a return of charity in that context than in this city life where everything's so fast paced and urbanized, but I digress.

 

[IisJustMe]

Bring me to the chamber of hell dedicated to hermits. Show me a hermit, and, when he dies, lead me through hell and introduce me to him there.

I won't be making the trip to that particular locale. However, I can absolutely assure you from Scripture that if he has not received Christ as his Savior and Lord on this earth, or exhibited the Law written on his heart as prescribed by Paul, the hermit will be there. I don't believe he'll have the benefit of a reserved section for himself and other hermits, however. I think its just kind of a "lump 'em all together" scenario.

 

[Mling]

I don't see where you got envy from what I just said. All I'm saying that greed is not beneficial, because, so far as I can tell, the only way a person can acquire extra is by taking it from somebody else. And so greed does in fact do harm. The person who has more than they need may not always see the other side of it, however, and would say they are not harming anybody.

I wasn't trying to say anything political, but if "care for your neighbors" is a socialist statement then....*shrug* ok.

 

[Mling]

However, I can absolutely assure you from Scripture that if he has not received Christ as his Savior and Lord on this earth, or exhibited the Law written on his heart as prescribed by Paul

Paul was a Jewish high priest and a Roman-educated scholar. He was absolutely wonderful at what he was trained to do, but he should have stuck to just that. No person alive has ever seen heaven or hell. Paul was alive when he was writing, and so, he hadn't seen it either. Only God knows how this will play out in the end. I certainly don't, neither do you, neither did Paul (though he might know, now). We might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[holo]

What are we considering beneficial to mean, then?

Greed is kind of the opposite of love. The opposite of sharing, at least.

 

[intricatic]

I don't see where you got envy from what I just said. All I'm saying that greed is not beneficial, because, so far as I can tell, the only way a person can acquire extra is by taking it from somebody else. And so greed does in fact do harm. The person who has more than they need may not always see the other side of it, however, and would say they are not harming anybody.

I wasn't trying to say anything political, but if "care for your neighbors" is a socialist statement then....*shrug* ok.

No, I asked if it was a socialist concept, big difference. I wasn't making any implications, just asking a question based on the reasoning involved. One might say that a rich person is contributing to society by creating jobs, from a different perspective. Doesn't negate their greed, though.

I mean, if you're going to overly complicate one issue, why not others? Either sin is relative, or it's specific. I.E. Beneficial to what or who?

 

[Mling]

I mean, if you're going to overly complicate one issue,

[I mean this lightly]

Yes, it was me. I admit it. I am the one who made global economics a complicated issue. Now be nice to me, or I'll make politics even worse.

 

[Abruer17]

Paul was a Jewish high priest and a Roman-educated scholar. He was absolutely wonderful at what he was trained to do, but he should have stuck to just that. No person alive has ever seen heaven or hell. Paul was alive when he was writing, and so, he hadn't seen it either. Only God knows how this will play out in the end. I certainly don't, neither do you, neither did Paul (though he might know, now). We might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Paul was a Jewish high priest and a Roman-educated scholar. He was absolutely wonderful at what he was trained to do, but he should have stuck to just that. No person alive has ever seen heaven or hell. Paul was alive when he was writing, and so, he hadn't seen it either. Only God knows how this will play out in the end. I certainly don't, neither do you, neither did Paul (though he might know, now). We might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Debating what pleases God or what saves man from eternal punishment is hardly the same as that.

 

[intricatic]

[I mean this lightly]

Yes, it was me. I admit it. I am the one who made global economics a complicated issue. Now be nice to me, or I'll make politics even worse.

I'm not trying to be anything but nice. Heh. I apologize if I come across that way. I see this as a partisan issue anymore because nobody is willing to look between the two outlooks and it becomes this "either A or B" topics. Human politics always end up corrupting whatever it touches.

 

[djbcrawford]

why do you not consider it "natural?" Animals show homosexual behavior quite often. Doesn't say anything about morality, but you can hardly argue that animals act"unnaturally."

Some animals also practice cannibalism, some eat their own young and others kill their partners after mating. Animal activity can't be used to justify human behaviour.

 

[Mling]

Debating what pleases God or what saves man from eternal punishment is hardly the same as that.

The logistical details of heaven and hell are more worthy of thought, perhaps, than how many angels fit on a pin, but we can know both with equal degrees of surity, which makes me question the purpose of such a debate.

I see this as a partisan issue anymore because nobody is willing to look between the two outlooks and it becomes this "either A or B" topics. Human politics always end up corrupting whatever it touches.

Yes, abortion is the same way. Either you think one way, or the other. I do get very frustrated with gay people who respond to any criticism or moral question with a cry of "homophobic bigot!" same with people who wave the banner of "you just don't like me because I'm black/Jewish/white/rich/poor/Christian/......." Western culture doesn't do subtlty real well.

Edit: And here we have an example!:

Some animals also practice cannibalism, some eat their own young and others kill their partners after mating. Animal activity can't be used to justify human behaviour.

That's the exact point I was making when I said it, "Doesn't say anything about morality"

 

[intricatic]

Yes, abortion is the same way. Either you think one way, or the other. I do get very frustrated with gay people who respond to any criticism or moral question with a cry of "homophobic bigot!" same with people who wave the banner of "you just don't like me because I'm black/Jewish/white/rich/poor/Christian/......." Western culture doesn't do subtlty real well.

It bugs me. But the reason it bothers me is that we rely on politics as a culture to an extreme degree, and it reflects in any topic being discussed - rather than looking for truth, we're looking to validate our own truths. I guess that's a philosophic issue, as well.

I don't think most of these issues should even be politicized. Abortion, perhaps, but it'd be nice if people would address it in a more civil and rational way.

 

[djbcrawford]

I think the entire concept of sin would be meanigless if you're alone in the universe. I believe God more than anything wants us to live, to prosper, to be healthy and free and happy. In fact, God cares so much about our well-being that He himself chose to DIE for us. I view sin in that perspective. Sin would be anything which is against God's will, basically.

Since I don't believe homosexuality is harmful in and of itself (though I can't claim it's "natural" either), I fail to see how it's sinful/morally wrong. Personally I need some sort of reason apart from "God says so", esp. since
a) God commanded a lot of things in the OT which seem redundant and even weird to us, now, and
b) I don't believe the bible and the word of God is one and the same.

I try to place myself in the homosexual's shoes; my heterosexuality is wrong and unnatural and I should never act upon it in any way, and if I do, I'm guilty of hell.

I just can't reconcile that with the God who saved me.

We are back at the same question - what is God's will in this matter.

Without the bible, God just becomes a wish-list of what we think he is or want him to be. While the Word of God can definitely be heard outside of the bible, the bible must be the framework in which it is judged.

This is not just in the old testament, but the new too.

The homosexual act is unsafe in itself so why say it doesn't cause harm, ignoring the psychologic side.

Place yourself in the shoes of someone with pedophile tendencies. You would expect them to try and control their urges. Many men's urges seem to involve sleeping with as many woman as possible. Should they control their urges?

This argument fails because it can be used to justify many sins.

Some men claim their behaviour does no lasting harm, but who knows the psychological damage they cause. The car thief and burgular claims his actions cause no harm cause you have insurance. Sometimes faith is about accepting God at his word even when we don't understand why. If you have all your questions answered it's not faith, just common sense.

It is good to be empathetic to others situations, but while you can use this to be sympathetic to their situation, you can't use this to condone their actions.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The reasons for it being wrong would appear to be:
1. The bible says so. Not once or twice in some obscure passge, but consistantly throughout. Sex is always talked about in a positive way when it is between a married man and woman. While Jesus didn't specifically mention homosexual acts, the only time he mentioned sex was between a man and a woman in marriage.

2. Biology. Male + Female = sexual reproduction

Both these reasons appear pretty strong.

1a) The Bible consistantly states that being a Qadesh* is wrong.
Qadesh is Strong's number 6942, and appears in Deut. 1st and 2nd Kings and Job.
Poking around StudyLight.org's interlinear will give more information

1b)While Jesus didn't specifically mention paying using paper money the only time he mentioned paying for anything was using coins.
The analogy is actually pretty good if you think about it.
2) Yes, and?
Seriously, I want to know how you think this is an argument against homosexuality.

The reasons for it being right appear to be:

1. I can't help it.

2. God made me this way/it's genetic.

3. It feels so good, it can't be wrong.

4. It doesn't hurt anybody.

I catagorically reject reasons 1), 2b) and 3 as they are stated (in particular assuming that "feels good" refers to physical sensations).

2a) "God made me this way" is not , IMHO, a useful argument as it is not verifiable.

4) is a partial argument. Outside of sexuality it is indeed a foundation argument about any behaviour.

OTOH I would point out that:
A) We know it exists in the natural world

B) It is between consenting adults

C) It doesn't hurt anybody in the same way that heterosexuality doesn't hurt anybody (i.e. it jolly well can cause a great deal of pain, but that is a function of the relationships and/or failure to protect against STDs not of homo vs. hetero).

D) People who are doing good work, productive in society at large and in the church, draw strength from their homosexual relationships just as heterosexuals do.

By their fruits you shall know them.

This is not merely a case of a person doing good despite a fallen behaviour, this is the behaviour, the relationship, making a positive impact in their lives.

(sorry, the following is a bit dated, I haven't been active recently in this)
* Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"
Bruce Bagemihl, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
* High Country News -- February 03, 1997 (Vol. 29, No. 2) "Macho
rams 'take a walk on the wild side'" by Lynne Bama
* Ferrets:
* [Psychoneuroendocrinology, 1986, 11:2, 167-76] male homosexuality
mechanism involving testosterone deficiency.
* Stumptail monkeys:
* [Arch Sex Behav, 1976 Nov, 5:6, 511-27] blended homosexual and
heterosexual behavior observed, (similar to that in Bonobo "Pygmy"
Chimpanzees).
* Squirrel monkeys:
* [Folia Primatol (Basel), 1973, 19:1, 61-72] relvance of female
homosexual behavior to dominance hierarchy.
* [Folia Primatol (Basel), 1977, 28:3, 203-15] female homosexual
group behavior with and without monandrous male presence.
* Rhesus monkeys:
* [Arch Sex Behav, 1979 Jan, 8:1, 63-80] lesbian relationships.
* Red flour beetles:
* [Behav Genet, 1991 Nov, 21:6, 547-58] evidence of inbreeding
depression on lesbian behavior, implying an active genetic,
survival mechanism.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

First of all, there are thousands if not tens of thousands or even more who have left the homosexual lifestyle successfully. Just as the numbers of successfully recovering (or delivered) alcoholics and drug addicts is a small percentage of those who continue in that lifestyle, it is a matter of lack of desire to leave -- not lack of faith, nor an inability to leave.
Why is this always the example given by those who support "freedom" for those who engage in homosexual practices? The attempt to link the Christian view of sin with violence against homosexuals is disgusting, especially when it comes from other Christians. The Matthew Shepherd murder, for example, was the rallying point for gay activitsts and those who supported the views of those groups, but it turned out the two men who killed Matthew didn't even know he was gay -- they were trying to mug him. Go back and research it online -- the media did a horrific job of reporting that fact compared to the hype they gave the "Christian-violence-on-gays" view that turned out not to be true.
A similar suicide rate is seen among alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, wife-beaters, those arrested for first-time offenses, and a multitude of other traumatic life experiences. What it suggests is Satan's victory over God's love, as both relate to that one life. No, it does not suggest they cannot help who they are, what it suggests is a surrender to the forces of depression and self-will, and a refusal to change. There are too many ex-practitioners of homosexual behavior for your premise to be true.

Can you show me the statistics that thousands have changed from Homosexuality and have become heterosexual? I believe one can be celibate and repress their sexual atrtractions, but to state that hundreds of thousands have changed their sexual feelings from Homosexual to Heterosexuality is not accurate.

 

[IisJustMe]

Paul was a Jewish high priest

No, he wasn't. He was of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5) and as everyone with a passing knowledge of the Bible knows, the priests were from the tribe of Levi.

and a Roman-educated scholar.

Again, not so. He was a Roman citizen, born into that state in Tarsus, but he was educated, and likely raised, in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) under the tutorage of Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin and still celebrated today as a great Jewish scholar.

He was absolutely wonderful at what he was trained to do, but he should have stuck to just that.

I guess the fact that Jesus Christ personally selected Paul as His apostle while the latter was on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians has no bearing on his ability to see things others are denied? How do you explain Peter, James and John seeing Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the Mt. of Olives? Or John's ability to see into the future (regardliess of the time frame you ascribe that future) in writing the Revelation.

No person alive has ever seen heaven or hell. Paul was alive when he was writing, and so, he hadn't seen it either.

Again, tell that to John when you see him. I believe he will disagree. So will Paul.

Only God knows how this will play out in the end. I certainly don't

Really?? You certainly seem to know whether Paul ascended into heaven or not. Why wouldn't you know the rest of the story?

We might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I see. So your "knowledge" of what visions Paul was given or not -- apparently "not" being your inside information -- are valid, but others who disagree are only supposing. Hmmmm

 

[IisJustMe]

Can you show me the statistics that thousands have changed from Homosexuality and have become heterosexual? I believe one can be celibate and repress their sexual atrtractions, but to state that hundreds of thousands have changed their sexual feelings from Homosexual to Heterosexuality is not accurate.

You will get hundreds if not thousands of hits with blogs from former practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle. Focus on the Family has a ministry headed by a former such practitioners to those seeking to leave the lifestyle. It is called "Love Won Out" ...

http://www.lovewonout.com/http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0022954.cfm

There are at least 20 web sites dedicated to helping people exit the homosexual lifestyle. So it is your statement that is not accurate.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

You will get hundreds if not thousands of hits with blogs from former practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle. Focus on the Family has a ministry headed by a former such practitioners to those seeking to leave the lifestyle. They held a conference in November, 2002 featuring several speakers who have made the transition. Here's a link ...

http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0022954.cfm

There are at least 20 web sites dedicated to helping people exit the homosexual lifestyle. So it is your statement that is not accurate.

I have been to most of the "Exgay" sites and I have spoken to many "exgays" most admit that they still struggle with sexual attraction toward men. Most who frequent the "exgay" yahoo groups are still struggling with attractions toward men. To say they left the "gay" lifestyle could be accurate, but to say that they are now Heterosexual is False and has never withstood any scientific scrutiny. Groups such as Narth or Exodus have never given any clear evidence to show that any have completely changed from Homosexualaity to Heterosexuality.

 

[Mling]

I may not have mentioned in this post that NT is not my forte. The details of Pauls background are not relevent to my point that Paul was human and alive. Worthy of respect, a wonderful apostle, a talented and well educated writer and probably the best recruiter early Christianity had. But human, and alive. That was my point.

I have no objection to the idea of people seeing visions, I believe Paul, John, and the others probably did see visions. The exact nature of the visions (real future/symbolic future/real other plane of existance/symoblic other plane of existance because seeing the real thing would have blown his mind) I wouldn't try to speculate.

My point was, we cannot claim to know what the afterlife is like, and debating such things seems somewhat pointless, as no proposed answer could ever be confirmed or denied. It is not something that is in our plane of existance, and we have no way of knowing anything about it. It is entirely God's domain.

Even those who have had near death experiences have no way of knowing if what they saw was truly heaven or hell, or a sort of "ampetheater" where somebody goes when their stay is only temporary.

I have no idea what this comment means. I have no more insight into another person's heart and salvation than anybody else:

You certainly seem to know whether Paul ascended into heaven or not

 

[IisJustMe]

I have been to most of the "Exgay" sites and I have spoken to many "exgays" most admit that they still struggle with sexual attraction toward men. Most who frequent the "exgay" yahoo groups are still struggling with attractions toward men. To say they left the "gay" lifestyle could be accurate, but to say that they are now Heterosexual is False and has never withstood any scientific scrutiny. Groups such as Narth or Exodus have never given any clear evidence to show that any have completely changed from Homosexualaity to Heterosexuality.

Nor NA, nor CA, nor GA, nor OA, but those who have remained alcohol- and/or drug-free, abstinent from gambling, or out of the "binge-and-purge" eating practices don't care whether science believes them or not. They know it worked for them. No one said they won't still struggle. All sinners struggle with their favorite sin, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Science can't poke or prod faith. It isn't measurable. But it does work.