Homosexuality - Sin? Why?

[Imagican]

Firstly, Artguy, I owe you an apology. After re-reading the original post I see that there 'were' two 'different' subjects in the question. My apologies, my friend, for the way the question was posted, you had every right to offer your post concerning genetics, and it was certainly your choice to post concerning the one issue 'without' a desire to discuss the other. My apologies. I am sorry. Forgive me for my haste and ignorance.

And, as far as the post about the crusades, it only shows that the poster only chooses to listen to ANYONE claiming to be Christian and making judgements about Christianity in general from this position. Not a really reliable way to make judgements, (Kind of like comparing all Satanist to one that decides to use this for an excuse to go out and become a serial killer. Trust me, not defending Satanist, but to associate ALL of them because of the deeds of one or a few is certainly unfounded).

And Noc, I appreciate you 'standing up' for your convictions. It's real difficult to even 'claim' Christ as one's Savior, or a belief in God in general, (even for our Jewish brothers and sisters), and ignore what is offered in the Word. Perhaps I may have come across a little harsh, but after reading some of the posts offered, I was wondering there for a minute if any had actually read the Word and were just offering the 'politically correct' responses that are so 'prevalent' in todays society.

I apologize to any I may have offended in my 'personal statements'. But, what I offered concerning the Word is nothing more than my obligation to any that I may wish to offer love and understanding. Sometimes the love that we are to offer IS NOT patting someone on the back and saying, "It's OK", sometimes we need to 'stand up' and defend the Word of God regardless of who's feelings it may rub the wrong way. If there were more of this type of rebuke in the churches, there may not be so much going wrong with them, (my opinion).

I've offered all that I am able on this thread. Since it IS such a sensitive issue, perhaps I was right when I 'first' decided to let this one go without my participation. Can't help what I understand or the way I feel about it.

So, in closing and ending my presence here, let me, once again, offer my apologies to any that I may have offended, especially you Artguy, and I bid you all a good day.

God Bless,

MEC

 

[thessalonian]

Are you not a Christian, Novum?

Nope, not Christian. Born and raised Jewish, went through a number of years of religious apathy starting around age 13, and presently been atheist for the past 4 or 5 years.

While you are not peppering your posts with 'appropriate' scriptures to support your argument (I DO acknowledge the fact that there don't appear to be any) I really do appreciate the human-ness of your posts in regard to this issue. Whatever your belief, I lean more toward your approach than that put forward by professed Christians.

Thanks.

I've always had trouble understanding the particularly violent opposition to homosexuals. What is it about homosexuality that gets people so riled up? Let's say a homosexual couple (men or women, take your pick) moved into a house down the street from you. How would you, personally, be affected? Let's say they then adopt a child. How would you, personally, be affected?

We are, of course, a free country and a somewhat-free forum. Everyone is certainly allowed to say what they will, but that does not mean I have to agree with it - and in this case, it's pretty hard to agree with what I think is very obviously hate speech.

Let me be very clear. I do not hate homosexuals. I protested against a protest they were having one time but when a couple of them asked me to give him a hug I did with no problem. They are made in the image and likeness of God. He loves them and wants them to come to a knowledge of the truth. I am a sinner as they are. Like mine, their natures are corrupt. The problem with homosexuals these days is that they want to be told that their sins are okay. It is not loving to say that the wrong that any man commits is okay. To do so does not motivate them to try and overcome their sin. God calls us to struggle against sin (Heb 12). When we throw in the towel against some sin, we are in a bad way regarding our relationship with him.


Blessings

 

[ArtGuy]

So, in closing and ending my presence here, let me, once again, offer my apologies to any that I may have offended, especially you Artguy, and I bid you all a good day.

No worries, buddy. Just try not to come off as so interrogative in the future.

 

[Novum]

The reason I don’t care is because no matter what science finds if it is contrary to Scripture then I will not accept it.

This sentence is very revealing and says a great deal to me. It represents a philosophy that is irreconcilably, fundamentally at odds with my own - and that of others.

I make no judgment and advocate no claim about the validity of either option, but I do wish to draw attention to the dichotomy.

 

[Novum]

And, as far as the post about the crusades, it only shows that the poster only chooses to listen to ANYONE claiming to be Christian and making judgements about Christianity in general from this position. Not a really reliable way to make judgements

You referred to Artguy by name. You're allowed to do the same for me. ;)

As for your remark here, you've now put yourself in the uncomfortable and difficult position of explaining exactly how we can determine if someone professing to be a Christian is the "real thing". And let's not even start on the "true Christian" debate - it should be clear to you that it is not possible to reach a consensus on the meaning of that term. Several threads in this very forum have shown as much.

 

[Drew]

And let's not even start on the "true Christian" debate - it should be clear to you that it is not possible to reach a consensus on the meaning of that term. Several threads in this very forum have shown as much.

I certainly agree that playing the "true Christian would do x" card has no real value as evidence in support of any position. As you say, the term effectively has no meaning, since there is such a divergence of opinion re what constitutes a "true Christian".

However, I want to re-assert the following argument (taking an "outside myself" perspective, where, for the sake of argument, I take a non-committal stance re the existence and nature of God):

1. It may indeed be the case that God exists and that He has "in his own mind" a "template" for the kinds of behaviours he wants his creatures (man) to engage in and refrain from.

2. It may be the case that this template has been transmitted, with reasonable accuracy into the minds of (at least some) humans.

3. By virture of 1, we can talk about the factual existence of some measure of conformance that each person has in relation to the content of this template - even if there is no agreement about the content of this template, there is indeed a template for this God.

4. If 1 and 2 are correct, it is possible for a human being to have an opinion about whether behaviour "x" (say, homosexual behaviour) does or does meet the template, with the important qualifier that this human's opinion is not arbitrary - by virtue of the combined effects of 1 and 2.

5. To the extent that 1 and 2 are true and to the extent that minds are "receptive" to the "transmissions" referred to in 2, we can indeed make progress toward determining the "truth" about what God wants people to do and believe.

6. This is not say that the template is, in any sense, "right". However, the project of determining "how God wants us to live" is not a hopeless one and the fact that there is such a wide divergence of opinion on this, does not rule out the possibility that there is indeed a "fact of the matter" about the question. However, I would say that this lack of agreement can be seen as at least soft evidence that 1 and / or 2 are incorrect. However, 1 and 2 could still be correct and we still might not have the kind of unanimity that one might otherwise expect. Why? One reason could be captured by New Testament statement to the effect that "the light has come into the world, but the world preferred evil."

 

[Novum]

However, I want to re-assert the following argument (taking an "outside myself" perspective, where, for the sake of argument, I take a non-committal stance re the existence and nature of God):

Sure. I'll take things point by point.

1. It may indeed be the case that God exists and that He has "in his own mind" a "template" for the kinds of behaviours he wants his creatures (man) to engage in and refrain from.

Okay.

2. It may be the case that this template has been transmitted, with reasonable accuracy into the minds of (at least some) humans.

We must ask exactly to what extent a "reasonable" transmission is, indeed, reasonable. Depending on our definition of "reasonable", it is possible, and even likely, to see wildly different templates between people.

Reasonableness aside, we must ask why this template has not been transmitted to all humans. For those who received it, why were they chosen? For those who did not, why were they passed on?

3. By virture of 1, we can talk about the factual existence of some measure of conformance that each person has in relation to the content of this template - even if there is no agreement about the content of this template, there is indeed a template for this God.

Due to the differing templates that exist between people, we can only logically conclude that different people will be conforming to potentially very different standards.

4. If 1 and 2 are correct, it is possible for a human being to have an opinion about whether behaviour "x" (say, homosexual behaviour) does or does meet the template, with the important qualifier that this human's opinion is not arbitrary - by virtue of the combined effects of 1 and 2.

But it is arbitrary, again because of the (lack of) reasonableness of the template that person received. Again, depending on how accurate these templates are, it is not unreasonable to suggest that human X will find homosexuality at odds with his template, while human Y will find just the opposite.

5. To the extent that 1 and 2 are true and to the extent that minds are "receptive" to the "transmissions" referred to in 2, we can indeed make progress toward determining the "truth" about what God wants people to do and believe.

Again, I see this as hinging dramatically - if not completely - on the accuracy and reasonableness of these templates. I do not think it is unreasonable (there's that word again ;)) to suggest that, for particularly low values of conformity between template types, no singular "truth" can be agreed upon by the population.

6. This is not say that the template is, in any sense, "right". However, the project of determining "how God wants us to live" is not a hopeless one and the fact that there is such a wide divergence of opinion on this, does not rule out the possibility that there is indeed a "fact of the matter" about the question. However, I would say that this lack of agreement can be seen as at least soft evidence that 1 and / or 2 are incorrect. However, 1 and 2 could still be correct and we still might not have the kind of unanimity that one might otherwise expect. Why? One reason could be captured by New Testament statement to the effect that "the light has come into the world, but the world preferred evil."

Certainly. It all hinges on the accuracy of the templates and, to a lesser extent, the question of why not everyone was given a template.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sputnik,

Thank you for your intellectual post. :o NOT.

How can you say that? I have a degree in Social Science. That degree (hanging proudly on my wall) should automatically make everything I say intellectual. :wink:

I've know gay men who have turned straight and are quite happily married with kids. It can happen.

Almost anything is possible, I guess. But ...'turning straight' ...?! I don't believe it. The best a 'gay' man can do is to 'live' with his orientation. And I'm sure that many do. It sure beats being condemned by one's Christian brethren! Being 'gay' doesn't necessarily mean that he can't do the 'right thing' by society but do so while living a lie. Sure a 'gay' can father kids ...why not? I'm sure that many have. This doesn't necessarily make them heterosexual in their orientation. It just means that people like you, Thess, approve of them.

This raises another question for me which is a little touchy, perhaps. But it IS a pertinent question. Should a 'gay' man fantacize 'gay thoughts' while love-making with his wife, would that also be considered a sin? By doing so, however, he may well be able to 'perform' appropriately.

Just as pertinent while I'm on this line of thought ...if a 'straight' person fantacizes about another female while love-making with his wife is that tantamount to sin as in adultery? Or does this kind of thing never happen within heterosexual relationships? ;-) Any takers, particularly in regard to the first question?

Anyway, I don't believe that, with or without help from God, a 'gay' person (one who is genetically 'wired' that way) will ever become heterosexual. He will either 'live with it' and maybe (or maybe not) abstain from sexual relations, or he will otherwise 'live a lie' for appearance sake (so as not to be ostrocized by his Christian brethren) and take a wife. I'm sure that this practice is fairly common.

Did you read my post above. I didn't condemn anyone but gave you quite rational reasons why it doesn't matter what science says on the matter.

You gave 'rational' reasons why it doesn't matter what science says? Sorry, Thess. I don't agree with you that we bury our heads in the sand (or the Bible) and make no allowances for one's being genetically attracted (sexually) toward the same gender. The Bible does NOT address genetics and I won't have you preaching to me things that it (the Bible) is not addressing. I believe that your take and that of others on this issue starts in the heart. THEN, and only then, are the condemning scriptures brought out to justify the heart agenda. Do you at least appreciate where I'm coming from here?

If you think the Bible is silent on the matter your doing one heck of a job of twisting the scriptures to fit your personal sympathies, which are very misguided.

I have not twisted one scripture, Thess. All I have ever said is that the Bible does NOT address the issue of one's being genetically 'wired' resulting in a sexual orientation - either homosexual or heterosexual or something in between - that was not of their choosing. You, and others, are making A SIN from the mere fact that some people have this disposition to begin with. It is cruel and heartless for anyone (especially Christians) not to recognize the fact that we are not all robots that are programmed in the same way.

While I'm on a roll I will confess that I find so many Christians to be the most boring individuals that I've ever come across. They tend to worship the Bible and the fine print while ignoring the battles and the uncertainities that may be going on within their fellow man. Homosexuality is not an issue that can be 'resolved' (?) by presenting some print on paper. When are some of you going to learn that fact? It's an area that needs much study and I for one am willing to look at the scientific approach before even thinking of making ignorant judgments on others.

Meanwhile, as I've said before, this is an issue that is between God and the individual, NOT between Thess (and others) and the individual.

 

[gingercat]

Spute,

You are just making excuses for sins. According to the Bible I am allowed to divorce my husband because he has porn hobby but because he does not want to we dont (we are seperated).

Now I would like to divorce him and get married to another loving man. This is my selfish desire. I will not allowed my selfish desire to control me because of my loyalty to my Lord.

As Christians we should not allow our selfish desires to control our lives. We have obligation to obey what Jesus teaches. What kind of faith is it if we cannot control ourselves in our daily lives in every aspect of our lives.

 

[Novum]

What kind of faith is it if we cannot control ourselves in our daily lives in every aspect of our lives.

I invite you to provide, for this forum, an example of a man (or woman) who can "control himself in his daily life in every aspect of his life". What kind of faith, indeed.

 

[gingercat]

What kind of faith is it if we cannot control ourselves in our daily lives in every aspect of our lives.

I invite you to provide, for this forum, an example of a man (or woman) who can "control himself in his daily life in every aspect of his life". What kind of faith, indeed.

We should do our best!!! That's why we need Jesus. He says nothing is imposible with His help. Novum, you don't believe in God so you will not understand what I am talking about. This is Christian talk.

 

[Novum]

We should do our best!!!

That's all we can hope for.

Novum, you don't believe in God so you will not understand what I am talking about. This is Christian talk.

Argument from ignorance. Don't patronize me.

 

[gingercat]

Argument from ignorance. Don't patronize me.

Well, Jesus says that everything is possible with His help. I believe Him!!!

Christians are followers of Jesus. We should follow what He teaches.

 

[Drew]

4. If 1 and 2 are correct, it is possible for a human being to have an opinion about whether behaviour "x" (say, homosexual behaviour) does or does meet the template, with the important qualifier that this human's opinion is not arbitrary - by virtue of the combined effects of 1 and 2.

But it is arbitrary, again because of the (lack of) reasonableness of the template that person received. Again, depending on how accurate these templates are, it is not unreasonable to suggest that human X will find homosexuality at odds with his template, while human Y will find just the opposite.

The general flavour of your response suggests that you do not accept my assertion number 2 - that a single template has factually been transmitted into the minds of people. That is, of course, a legitimate position to take. But, and maybe I am splitting hairs, you seem to dismiss the notion as if it were obviously untrue.

I believe that my argument works if, of course, assumptions 1 and 2 turn out to be factually correct. So, in relation to your comment above, you seem to saying that assumption 2 simply cannot be correct. My overall point is that the argument is fine as long as the assumptions are correct. And, of course, I will probably not be able to justify the assumptions in any convincing way. But there is no problem of logic here - assumptions 1 and 2 could be correct, and the reason that we see "divergence" among people, or people claiming that they did not receive a template is that they are essentially "fooling themselves" at some level.

This may be mildly offensive to a person who sincerely believes that their mind has not been illuminated by God in this respect. On the other hand, though, I take it that you believe that we Christians have dreamed up an imaginary non-existent being in the sky. Fair enough.

I believe that you read my post (in a different thread) about how a standard of morality may in fact be an objective "system property". If this is so, then we can indeed say that an objectively true template of moral behaviours exist. The challenge is simply (not so simple, maybe) figuring it out.

So I think the idea of the factual existence of an "objective" moral order is entirely reasonable, and it is at least possible that God has communicated this to basically everyone.

 

[Novum]

The general flavour of your response suggests that you do not accept my assertion number 2 - that a single template has factually been transmitted into the minds of people. That is, of course, a legitimate position to take. But, and maybe I am splitting hairs, you seem to dismiss the notion as if it were obviously untrue.

Perhaps. But I'm no doubt guilty of splitting hairs myself.

I believe that my argument works if, of course, assumptions 1 and 2 turn out to be factually correct. So, in relation to your comment above, you seem to saying that assumption 2 simply cannot be correct. My overall point is that the argument is fine as long as the assumptions are correct. And, of course, I will probably not be able to justify the assumptions in any convincing way. But there is no problem of logic here - assumptions 1 and 2 could be correct, and the reason that we see "divergence" among people, or people claiming that they did not receive a template is that they are essentially "fooling themselves" at some level.

Yes, the argument makes a fair bit of (common) sense - I'd have to go back and read more in depth for logical issues - if those assumptions are held true. But yes, the difficulty lies in demonstrating any of these assumptions to be true.

This may be mildly offensive to a person who sincerely believes that their mind has not been illuminated by God in this respect. On the other hand, though, I take it that you believe that we Christians have dreamed up an imaginary non-existent being in the sky. Fair enough.

I've made no such claim here. If your god works for you, that's quite fine by me.

I believe that you read my post (in a different thread) about how a standard of morality may in fact be an objective "system property". If this is so, then we can indeed say that an objectively true template of moral behaviours exist. The challenge is simply (not so simple, maybe) figuring it out.

Ooh, there's the good stuff.

I disagree completely that there is any semblance of an objective morality in this world. Morality has demonstrably been subjective between people and between cultures throughout all recorded history, and even such assumed maxims as "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" can be very easily and very readily shown to be worthless and, in some thought experiments, unethical themselves.

Furthermore, the existence of sociopaths, differing cultures, poor education in many parts of the world, and the continued existence of malum in se crime seems, to me, to be further evidence that worldwide agreement on even a single ethical maxim is virtually impossible.

 

[Novum]

The general flavour of your response suggests that you do not accept my assertion number 2 - that a single template has factually been transmitted into the minds of people. That is, of course, a legitimate position to take. But, and maybe I am splitting hairs, you seem to dismiss the notion as if it were obviously untrue.

Perhaps. But I'm no doubt guilty of splitting hairs myself.

I believe that my argument works if, of course, assumptions 1 and 2 turn out to be factually correct. So, in relation to your comment above, you seem to saying that assumption 2 simply cannot be correct. My overall point is that the argument is fine as long as the assumptions are correct. And, of course, I will probably not be able to justify the assumptions in any convincing way. But there is no problem of logic here - assumptions 1 and 2 could be correct, and the reason that we see "divergence" among people, or people claiming that they did not receive a template is that they are essentially "fooling themselves" at some level.

Yes, the argument makes a fair bit of (common) sense - I'd have to go back and read more in depth for logical issues - if those assumptions are held true. But yes, the difficulty lies in demonstrating any of these assumptions to be true.

This may be mildly offensive to a person who sincerely believes that their mind has not been illuminated by God in this respect. On the other hand, though, I take it that you believe that we Christians have dreamed up an imaginary non-existent being in the sky. Fair enough.

I've made no such claim here. If your god works for you, that's quite fine by me.

I believe that you read my post (in a different thread) about how a standard of morality may in fact be an objective "system property". If this is so, then we can indeed say that an objectively true template of moral behaviours exist. The challenge is simply (not so simple, maybe) figuring it out.

Ooh, there's the good stuff.

I disagree completely that there is any semblance of an objective morality in this world. Morality has demonstrably been subjective between people and between cultures throughout all recorded history, and even such assumed maxims as "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" can be very easily and very readily shown to be worthless and, in some thought experiments, unethical themselves.

Furthermore, the existence of sociopaths, differing cultures, poor education in many parts of the world, and the continued existence of malum in se crime seems, to me, to be further evidence that worldwide agreement on even a single ethical maxim is virtually impossible.

 

[ArtGuy]

Spute,

You are just making excuses for sins. According to the Bible I am allowed to divorce my husband because he has porn hobby but because he does not want to we dont (we are seperated).

Now I would like to divorce him and get married to another loving man. This is my selfish desire. I will not allowed my selfish desire to control me because of my loyalty to my Lord.

As Christians we should not allow our selfish desires to control our lives. We have obligation to obey what Jesus teaches. What kind of faith is it if we cannot control ourselves in our daily lives in every aspect of our lives.

If we apply the "homosexual orientation is itself a sin" template to your situation, doesn't that make the mere act of your wanting to get a divorce condemnable? It seems that many hold the view that a gay man wanting to be with another man is a sin in itself, and it's not enough to simply refrain from such behaviors - he must also actively stop "being gay" if he wish to gain favor with the Lord.

 

[Drew]

I disagree completely that there is any semblance of an objective morality in this world. Morality has demonstrably been subjective between people and between cultures throughout all recorded history, and even such assumed maxims as "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" can be very easily and very readily shown to be worthless and, in some thought experiments, unethical themselves.

I think that a very compelling plausibility case can be made that there indeed exists a set of behaviours {B-optimal} that is indeed objectively "the best" moral code to implement for any human society.

I certainly do have assumption, naturally enough. I think that the biggest assumption is the following: There exists a set of properties {P} of any and all human societies that all mentally well people (this qualifier is perhaps a little vague, I admit) in that society will recognize as fundamentally desirable. These include, for example: freedom, peace, security, comfort, pleasure, intellectual fulfillment, physical health, efficiency, wealth, etc. etc.

My argument is basically that all socieities are composed of people placed in an environment of limited resources - limited space, natural resources, time,etc. Accordingly, there is a requirement for cooperative behviours among all the people in order to maximize the likelihood that an arbitrary person will experience all the things in {P}.

This is a somewhat technical point - while I am not presently able to rigourously defend this view, I think that it is fairly obvious that there are certain sets of individual behaviour standards {B} that are objectively better than other candidate sets at producing a society where as many people get as much of {P} as possible. This is purely a "technical" point and is based on my intuition that any "system" can have its free variables tweaked to certain settings in order to optimize some specified state of the system.

So just like there exists an objectively optimal method for designing a jet aircraft, so there exists an objectively best moral code for any human society. If you do not think there exists an optimal method for designing airplanes, I would like to understand why you think that way. I am not saying that we fully know these optimal principles for designing planes, but rather that they exist.

Now I am not saying that the set of optimal human behaviours might not be complex in the sense that there might be a lot of "special cases" and qualifiers. And I recognize that if the behaviour set is too heavily qualified, it essentially ceases to be "general" enough and therefore ceases to be any kind of a standard. But I suspect there are indeed some "general" moral rules that, if followed, tend to produce societies where people are much more likely to get {P}.

 

[gingercat]

If we apply the "homosexual orientation is itself a sin" template to your situation, doesn't that make the mere act of your wanting to get a divorce condemnable? It seems that many hold the view that a gay man wanting to be with another man is a sin in itself, and it's not enough to simply refrain from such behaviors - he must also actively stop "being gay" if he wish to gain favor with the Lord.

Yes, so many things that come into our minds that lead to sin; like if you just look at a woman with lustful eyes you are committing sin. where is it goint to end? The least we can do is not to act on it.

 

[ArtGuy]

If we apply the "homosexual orientation is itself a sin" template to your situation, doesn't that make the mere act of your wanting to get a divorce condemnable? It seems that many hold the view that a gay man wanting to be with another man is a sin in itself, and it's not enough to simply refrain from such behaviors - he must also actively stop "being gay" if he wish to gain favor with the Lord.

Yes, so many things that come into our minds that lead to sin; like if you just look at a woman with lustful eyes you are committing sin. where is it goint to end? The least we can do is not to act on it.

Well, lust is the only sin that consists purely of thought with no action. Neither homosexuality nor wanting a divorce are lustful, though, so they wouldn't count.