Lets talk about homosexuality. + my experience being a lesbian

[Christ_empowered]

Again…social factors. Dad won’t spend time with soft sons then soft sons end up gay…

The expert’s ramble on about biological influences the psychologist goes on and on about family dynamics…

What about the community and society as a whole? Especially since most kids spend 8 hours daily in K through 12…

 

[evenifigoalone]

Correlation and causation are two different things. Most homes in America are dysfunctional.

 

[Riven]

Again…social factors. Dad won’t spend time with soft sons then soft sons end up gay…

The expert’s ramble on about biological influences the psychologist goes on and on about family dynamics…

What about the community and society as a whole? Especially since most kids spend 8 hours daily in K through 12…

Well, there's a lot of fatherless homes in America with single moms raising kids alone. But I don't think that would have any effect on their sexuality as they grow into adults.

 

[Tenchi]

No, I actually do know of that. For example, loss of hearing can, over time, physically shrink portions of the brain. However, thinking thoughts cannot change someone's sexuality.

??? This isn't what God's word says. One's thoughts have a profound effect upon one's conduct, desires and attitudes. And so, the Christian person is to fix their mind upon godly things, not giving place to the devil in the content of their thoughts. (Psalm 1; Psalm 119:105; Philippians 4:8; Hebrews 12:2-3, etc.) That one is a sexual being cannot be altered by thinking alone: I can't think my male genitalia into non-existence, or my testosterone. But I can most definitely bring my sexual impulses under God's control, conforming my sexual interest and practices to His will and way, being sexual in the way He intends. This begins with how I think about human sexuality and God's supreme authority over it.

Because the mind cannot exist without the brain.

Sure it can - and does. There is an ever-growing collection of NDE (near-death experiences) accounts that show that the mind does continue on beyond the functioning of the brain. People whose hearts had stopped and whose brain activity had flat-lined (in some cases, for the better part of a half-hour) during surgery have been able to recount the activity of the medical staff in the OR trying to revive them; others who had flat-lined, were able to recount events taking place outside the OR, near and far; others received information from deceased loved ones that was unknown to the living (e.g. - where a will was hidden). Dr. Gary Habermas recently did an interview on the Discovery Institute's channel on YouTube discussing the ever-increasing credible mound of NDE's. Check it out.

There has never been a physical demonstration of the mind continuing to exist independently after brain death.

See above.

Prove it.

Prove that homosexuality is spiritual and psychological not biological? Why should I? You're the one contending that homosexuality isn't these things but is, instead, a biological phenomena. So, YOU prove your own contention. I stand on the side of centuries of understanding about this behavior, arising from easily-made observations of human anatomy, the obvious purpose and function of human sexuality, and the commonness of heterosexuality. If I was a proponent of the ToE (Theory of Evolution), I'd point out that, if homosexuality were biological, natural selection would have eradicated it long, long ago from the human gene pool as trait entirely disadvantageous to the survival of the species. And, despite repeated attempts through modern research to prove a biological basis for homosexuality, the question remains unanswered. So, it's not I who needs to prove anything but YOU. So far, you've not been anywhere close to successful in doing so.

Most of the western world has determined that homosexuality is not an issue, much less something that requires a death sentence.

What does this have to do with your authority to declare the moral character of homosexuality? The Argument from the Majority is a logical fallacy (majorities of people can, and have, been wrong) and offers nothing, then, in support of your right to say you know better than God concerning the matter of homosexuality.

We came to that conclusion on our own by using logic and reason.

You haven't demonstrated this in your defense of homosexuality.

And on what basis do you rest the idea that "logic and reason" are the Ultimate Arbiters of moral questions? What gives Logic and Reason this power, exactly? And if there are opposing arguments (as there are in this case) that employ reason and logic? What then?

Those that reject logic and reason, like the Islamic countries, still put gay people to the sword while praising God.

Muslims employ a line of reasoning in order to arrive at the killing of homosexuals. It's not a good one, but it is reasoning of a sort, nonetheless. I think your own line of reasoning in support of homosexuality is equally bankrupt.

So, be very careful with getting your morality from a divine being or holy books written by men that lived during the bronze age.

False equivalency. And a Strawman.

The bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of stories of mass murder and infanticide.

And more Strawman stuff.

What we saw on October 7th in Israel, was common practice back in the time of Moses.

A common practice, eh? To use your own words: Prove it.

What we see today with the persecution of gays in the Middle East, is the sort of morality that is derived from holy books instead of the enlightenment.

The Muslims don't see it your way. And, so far, you haven't offered anything that would establish your view as superior to theirs in terms of moral authority and hard, scientific evidence.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

I'm sorry, but if this is what you consider morally good, then I think you're living in wrong century.

You can be sorry as you like but it doesn't make your opinion here any more valid. When, exactly, was the last time Christians threw a homosexual off a rooftop?

Yes, this sounds very much like what a loving father would do.

Strawman. God isn't just, or mostly, a "loving Father." Only to the born-again is He a Father; to all others He is a holy, just and wrathful Judge to whom they shall give an account one day. If unrepentant sinners continue to despise God's love and grace, rebelling against His will throughout their lives, living in darkness and sin, they will suffer eternal punishment in hell for doing so. This is holy justice at work, and love, in fact, but by a Judge, not a Father.

You've effectively proven my point. This is a totalitarian system.

False equivalency. God is not a human. He occupies a category all His own. No human has made a universe, sustaining it moment-by-moment; no human has the perfection, knowledge and infinite power God possesses. And so, comparing God to a human dictator - as I explained in my last post - is an entirely faulty comparison. God cannot be a totalitarian despot in the universe that exists entirely by His own will and power.

A celestial North Korea, where the worshippers of this psychopathic deity are rewarded with riches, and those that oppose him are rewarded not with death, but with eternal torture.

See above. No human possesses the unique divine prerogative of God to order things as He wants in the universe He has made and sustains at every moment.

What a terrible fate for the North Koreans. Imagine being forced to live in that place your whole life, hoping for something better in the here after. Only to then die and live with the terrible realization that you've only traded the physical North Korea for a celestial one that's somehow even worse.

Strawman. BIG strawman.

 

[Riven]

??? This isn't what God's word says. One's thoughts have a profound effect upon one's conduct, desires and attitudes. And so, the Christian person is to fix their mind upon godly things, not giving place to the devil in the content of their thoughts. (Psalm 1; Psalm 119:105; Philippians 4:8; Hebrews 12:2-3, etc.) That one is a sexual being cannot be altered by thinking alone: I can't think my male genitalia into non-existence, or my testosterone. But I can most definitely bring my sexual impulses under God's control, conforming my sexual interest and practices to His will and way, being sexual in the way He intends. This begins with how I think about human sexuality and God's supreme authority over it.

Can you think your way into being attracted to the same sex?

Sure it can - and does. There is an ever-growing collection of NDE (near-death experiences) accounts that show that the mind does continue on beyond the functioning of the brain. People whose hearts had stopped and whose brain activity had flat-lined (in some cases, for the better part of a half-hour) during surgery have been able to recount the activity of the medical staff in the OR trying to revive them; others who had flat-lined, were able to recount events taking place outside the OR, near and far; others received information from deceased loved ones that was unknown to the living (e.g. - where a will was hidden). Dr. Gary Habermas recently did an interview on the Discovery Institute's channel on YouTube discussing the ever-increasing credible mound of NDE's. Check it out.

Those are testimonies. I'm talking about scientific studies. Many NDE's are likely the result of a lack of oxygen causing the brain to hallucinate. Mountain climbers commonly experience hypoxia and end up seeing hallucinations. I'm not saying the mind doesn't continue after death. I'm saying it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated that it does, just as ghosts haven't been proven to be real despite hundreds of thousands of testimonies over the years.

Prove that homosexuality is spiritual and psychological not biological? Why should I?

Because you're making a definitive statement saying that it's not biological. We currently don't know what the root cause is, bird if you know for certain that it isn't biological, then please show us how you've come to that conclusion.

You're the one contending that homosexuality isn't these things but is, instead, a biological phenomena. So, YOU prove your own contention.

I've said that it's undetermined, but that I lean towards it being biological. I'm not making a claim that I have to prove.

I stand on the side of centuries of understanding about this behavior, arising from easily-made observations of human anatomy, the obvious purpose and function of human sexuality, and the commonness of heterosexuality. If I was a proponent of the ToE (Theory of Evolution), I'd point out that, if homosexuality were biological, natural selection would have eradicated it long, long ago from the human gene pool as trait entirely disadvantageous to the survival of the species. And, despite repeated attempts through modern research to prove a biological basis for homosexuality, the question remains unanswered. So, it's not I who needs to prove anything but YOU. So far, you've not been anywhere close to successful in doing so.

Genetic mutations still occur even today that may not be beneficial for the purposes of reproduction. People born with both sex organs, no sex drive, infertility, etc.

What does this have to do with your authority to declare the moral character of homosexuality? The Argument from the Majority is a logical fallacy (majorities of people can, and have, been wrong) and offers nothing, then, in support of your right to say you know better than God concerning the matter of homosexuality.

Because the minority either believes it's wrong for religious reasons, or believes it's necessary to outright kill them for being gay. Both of those positions used to make up the majority. Now they don't. What has changed? As people became more secular, they realized that there is no reason to discriminate against them or kill them.

It's the same reason people in the West today would be appalled at the idea of stoning someone to death for adultery or some other offence based on bronze age morality laws. It's also the same reason we are appalled at the idea of slavery, which was still common in Old Testament times. Put simply, we've moved on from that time in our history.

You haven't demonstrated this in your defense of homosexuality.

And on what basis do you rest the idea that "logic and reason" are the Ultimate Arbiters of moral questions? What gives Logic and Reason this power, exactly? And if there are opposing arguments (as there are in this case) that employ reason and logic? What then?

Because it's better than the alternative. Opposing arguments should be listened to. However, it's a little difficult to convince people in the developed world that harming gay people just for being gay is a worthwhile endeavor.

Muslims employ a line of reasoning in order to arrive at the killing of homosexuals. It's not a good one, but it is reasoning of a sort, nonetheless. I think your own line of reasoning in support of homosexuality is equally bankrupt.

No, they don't. They follow what their holy book says. And I resent the fact that you think my advocating for gay people to live their lives without this constant barrage of judgment and condemnation is equivalent to some 7th century minded barbarians that wish to murder them all.

False equivalency. And a Strawman.

How? You're getting your morality from the bible. Without it you wouldn't know what God is for our against. But the bible was not written but God, but by men.

A common practice, eh? To use your own words: Prove it.

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the awomen children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Numbers 31

Moses sends forth 12,000 warriors who destroy the Midianites—The prey is divided in Israel—None in the armies of Israel are lost.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

The Muslims don't see it your way. And, so far, you haven't offered anything that would establish your view as superior to theirs in terms of moral authority and hard, scientific evidence.

Yes, I have. Killing people because they're different is morally repugnant. Scientific evidence shows that nations that behave in barbaric ways either don't last long or they stay in a permanent state of barbarism.

You can be sorry as you like but it doesn't make your opinion here any more valid. When, exactly, was the last time Christians threw a homosexual off a rooftop?

I dont know. But I'm sure many would if they thought they could get away with it.

False equivalency. God is not a human. He occupies a category all His own. No human has made a universe, sustaining it moment-by-moment; no human has the perfection, knowledge and infinite power God possesses. And so, comparing God to a human dictator - as I explained in my last post - is an entirely faulty comparison. God cannot be a totalitarian despot in the universe that exists entirely by His own will and power.

Well, that's just your opinion.

Strawman. BIG strawman.

How? What did I say there that isn't true?

 

[Tenchi]

Can you think your way into being attracted to the same sex?

??? The sexual impulse is present in all normally-functioning human beings. It's direction is a matter of mind, of choice, not biology. To set one's sexual impulse in the God-intended direction, the right direction, one must place their mind under His constant control. With Him, all things are possible - even changing perverse homosexual attraction and conduct.

Those are testimonies. I'm talking about scientific studies.

??? Apparently, you are ill-informed about NDE's. They are actually well-inspected accounts, verified quite carefully, the assertions of the once-dead person compared with the facts as much as possible. So, no, NDE's aren't merely testimonies, uncritically accepted as true. Far from it. Again, check out the work of Dr. Gary Habermas in this area. He's done rigorous examination of NDE's for a long time.

Many NDE's are likely the result of a lack of oxygen causing the brain to hallucinate. Mountain climbers commonly experience hypoxia and end up seeing hallucinations.

Perhaps. But the NDE's I'm talking about aren't anything like hypoxic hallucinations.

I'm not saying the mind doesn't continue after death. I'm saying it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated that it does, just as ghosts haven't been proven to be real despite hundreds of thousands of testimonies over the years.

Well, I think this an untenable view to hold. NDE's, in particular, show otherwise, as do the many philosophical arguments against the identicality of brain and mind.

Because you're making a definitive statement saying that it's not biological. We currently don't know what the root cause is, bird if you know for certain that it isn't biological, then please show us how you've come to that conclusion.

Again, I don't have to argue for what is obvious. Your uncertainty about the issue doesn't have to be mine when I have only to understand that the typical man's sex organs have been made for heterosexual, not homosexual, sex. You want to believe that this biology is directly at odds with itself in the homosexual guy. Okay. It's a free country; believe as you like. For me, for the reasons I've offered, such a belief has no convincing force behind it - doubly so in the light of the contradictory truth of God's word.

I've said that it's undetermined, but that I lean towards it being biological. I'm not making a claim that I have to prove.

Well, I think the "undetermined" position requires more support than you've offered.

Genetic mutations still occur even today that may not be beneficial for the purposes of reproduction. People born with both sex organs, no sex drive, infertility, etc.

If homosexuality is a mere "mutation," it's clearly deleterious effect on the species would have had it removed millenia ago by natural selection. But it keeps popping up. Not in every culture, mind you, but most commonly in affluent and decaying societies with no connection to the Judeo-Christian ethic or worldview. As far as I'm aware, its been exceedingly rare or non-existent in more primitive cultures.

You might take note of how a lack of sex organs, or an absence of a sex drive, or infertility are physically-identifiable problems, not a mental illness, as homosexuality was defined in the DSM only a few decades ago.

In any case, God says in His word that homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a mutation, but the consequence of what Romans 1:18-22 describes both societally and individually.

Because the minority either believes it's wrong for religious reasons, or believes it's necessary to outright kill them for being gay. Both of those positions used to make up the majority. Now they don't. What has changed? As people became more secular, they realized that there is no reason to discriminate against them or kill them.

I asked you upon what objective and authoritative basis you assert your moral view of homosexuality? None of this answers my question. Nor does this justify using the fallacious Argument from the Majority that you did. Various cultures have adopted all sorts of attitudes and beliefs en masse and could argue for them just as you have here. But these cultures had embraced infanticide as normal, and slavery, misogyny, pedophilia, honor killing, cannibalism, bestiality and so on. Like you, the people of these cultures could have said that these things were indicators of moral advancement, offering various rationales for their evil behaviors, including that they were common, which is to say typical of the majority. Without God, on what grounds could you assert that they were doing wrong? On what grounds do you assert that your view of homosexuality (or that of your culture) is objectively morally right? It seems to me you're just assuming that the trends of morality in modern secular culture are better than those of, say, the Muslim culture. Again, on what objective, authoritative grounds?

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

It's the same reason people in the West today would be appalled at the idea of stoning someone to death for adultery or some other offence based on bronze age morality laws. It's also the same reason we are appalled at the idea of slavery, which was still common in Old Testament times. Put simply, we've moved on from that time in our history.

But a society being appalled by something generally doesn't establish their particular moral sensibility as objectively and authoritatively correct, or right. Homosexuality is appalling to a majority of Muslims. In Arabia or Iran, the western secular adoption of homosexuality as a normal thing is disgusting. What objective, authoritative standard can they both appeal to in grounding their view of homosexuality? The Muslim has Allah as such a source; what does the secular, God-denying person have as an equivalently objective and authoritative source for their moral views? Nothing, as far as I can see. Without God, you've just got preference, really, cultural and personal opinion and taste, on which to ground what's moral and immoral. But this is the very same ground on which any culture or person can ground any moral stance. On this ground, Hitler could say his Nazi utopia was morally okay. The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, could use the same ground to declare his killing and eating of young men was morally fine. If morality is just a matter of preference and/or opinion, then no one can say to anyone else, "You shouldn't do that! It's wrong." All that can truly be declared is, "I don't like that," which, as far as I can tell, is all you're saying about your own source of moral authority.

Because it's better than the alternative.

Says who? On what grounds? And on what basis are those grounds universally authoritative? What's "better" in one person's view might not be "better" in the view of another. How do you objectively adjudicate between them? Merely saying, "I think this is better and so do a lot of other people," doesn't work. Hitler could have argued this very same thing; so could Muslims in Iraq killing homosexuals; so could have ancient pagans sacrificing children to demonic idols.

However, it's a little difficult to convince people in the developed world that harming gay people just for being gay is a worthwhile endeavor.

This has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a thing is morally right or wrong. See above.

No, they don't. They follow what their holy book says. And I resent the fact that you think my advocating for gay people to live their lives without this constant barrage of judgment and condemnation is equivalent to some 7th century minded barbarians that wish to murder them all.

But I didn't make this equivalency, you did. I was speaking to the fact that both you and the Muslim employ some sort of reasoning, some kind of logic, to arrive at your views. So, then, it doesn't help your case simply to say that your view is more reasonable or logical; the Muslim thinks the very same thing about his view. You have to show how your use of reason and logic is better than that of the Muslim, not merely assert that it is. So far, you haven't done this.

How? You're getting your morality from the bible. Without it you wouldn't know what God is for our against. But the bible was not written but God, but by men.

??? I don't believe this. If I did, I wouldn't be a Christian. God's word is His word, not because it simply claims that it is, but because it bears the marks of a divine origin upon it:

1.) Thematic unity.
2.) Fulfilled prophecy.
3.) Historicity.
4.) Survivability.
5.) Effect upon individuals and cultures.
6.) Correspondence to reality.

In these regards (and others) the Bible is wholly unlike the Q'uran, or any other holy book of any other religion. It's only serious ignorance and/or prejudice that lumps them all together.

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the awomen children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Your assertion was that the following of these commands was COMMON in Israel. You haven't yet shown that this was so. What's more, you haven't acknowledged the context of such commands, their purpose and whether or not they were actually carried out. You might want to take a gander at Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster" before you answer.

Yes, I have. Killing people because they're different is morally repugnant.

As you've stated it, this is simply your opinion. What can you offer that actually makes it objectively and authoritatively binding on everyone else morally? Others think homosexuality is deeply morally repugnant, worthy of death, even. And so? On what basis do you judge who is right and who is wrong without resorting to "the majority rules" fallacy, or personal preference, neither of which carry sufficient moral authority to dictate a universal moral fact?

I dont know. But I'm sure many would if they thought they could get away with it.

This shows a measure of prejudicial antagonism toward Christians that will make it impossible for you to clearly and fully hear and understand the Christian point of view.

It has never been the practice of biblical Christians to kill homosexuals. Doing so, killing homosexuals, would be directly against the clear teaching of Christ and his apostles, laid out in the New Testament. Unlike the theocracy of OT Israel, Christians are members of a family and kingdom characterized by love, holiness, mercy and grace, not violence and oppression. They are not the "arm" of God used to judge other wicked nations; they are not commanded to stone the wicked, but to urge the rebellious wicked to repent of their sin and be saved (Mark 16:15); they are not called by God to wreak violence and death upon His enemies but to love them (Matthew 22:39; Galatians 5:14) and to wait on God to enact His perfectly holy and just wrath upon the ungodly (Hebrews 10:30-31).

 

[jasonc]

I will add under the pro gay rights Democrats I was being told in the army while readying for my second deployment that islam and Arabic culture are equal but just different to ours that our values were no better or worse then theirs ..

I assure you I spoke out against that and a Jew who was born and lived in Israel and became an American citizen .


Moral relativism at its finest .and pc .

 

[daninthelionsden]

Well, there's a lot of fatherless homes in America with single moms raising kids alone. But I don't think that would have any effect on their sexuality as they grow into adults.

There are men who look for and prey on those exact familial situations.

 

[Riven]

There are men who look for and prey on those exact familial situations.

True. But what does that have to do with the topic being discussed here?

 

[Riven]

??? The sexual impulse is present in all normally-functioning human beings. It's direction is a matter of mind, of choice, not biology. To set one's sexual impulse in the God-intended direction, the right direction, one must place their mind under His constant control. With Him, all things are possible - even changing perverse homosexual attraction and conduct.

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat, can you think your way into being attracted to the same sex?

Perhaps. But the NDE's I'm talking about aren't anything like hypoxic hallucinations.

My problem with NDE's is that they're so different from each other. They lead people to wildly different conclusions about the afterlife. Some say there is no hell. Others say there is no heaven. Some say they talked to God. Others say there was no God present.

What we never hear about is those that died and experienced nothing. Because that's boring, I guess.

Well, I think this an untenable view to hold. NDE's, in particular, show otherwise, as do the many philosophical arguments against the identicality of brain and mind.

No, they don't. Again, we can't verify anything that people see during an NDE. For all we know, it could be a hallucination brought on by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Regardless of what it is though, why are they so wildly different from each other? How can a Christian die and find herself in hell, while any atheist dies and finds himself in heaven having a conversation with Jesus?

Again, I don't have to argue for what is obvious. Your uncertainty about the issue doesn't have to be mine when I have only to understand that the typical man's sex organs have been made for heterosexual, not homosexual, sex. You want to believe that this biology is directly at odds with itself in the homosexual guy. Okay. It's a free country; believe as you like. For me, for the reasons I've offered, such a belief has no convincing force behind it - doubly so in the light of the contradictory truth of God's word.

Well, yes. It is a free country and people should be able to believe what they want. However, I don't believe the biology is at odds with itself. A gay man can still technically have sex with a woman and get her pregnant. The plumbing works. It's the attraction to the woman herself that is not present.

Well, I think the "undetermined" position requires more support than you've offered.

Why? All I've said is what I think could be happening. That perhaps it is biological and not something supernatural.

If homosexuality is a mere "mutation," it's clearly deleterious effect on the species would have had it removed millenia ago by natural selection. But it keeps popping up. Not in every culture, mind you, but most commonly in affluent and decaying societies with no connection to the Judeo-Christian ethic or worldview. As far as I'm aware, its been exceedingly rare or non-existent in more primitive cultures.

A "mere" mutation? You make it sound insignificant. Do you realize that cell mutation is the cause for cancer? Mutations can have significant impacts on a person's body and mental state.

How do you know homosexuality is absent in primitive cultures? Assuming it's not a culture that puts those people to death.

You might take note of how a lack of sex organs, or an absence of a sex drive, or infertility are physically-identifiable problems, not a mental illness, as homosexuality was defined in the DSM only a few decades ago.

I know. But that wasn't the point. A person can have perfectly working sex organs, but be born retarded. Do you understand what I'm saying? Sometimes the human body doesn't just work as intended.

In any case, God says in His word that homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a mutation, but the consequence of what Romans 1:18-22 describes both societally and individually.

Sigh. Thats because science didn't exist in the bronze age. Those men that wrote the bible didn't know anything about genetics. The word hadn't even been invented yet.

I asked you upon what objective and authoritative basis you assert your moral view of homosexuality?

I don't have an objective basis for morality, and I don't need God or any other deity to know what's right and wrong. Again, there are children that are raised by atheist parents and they aren't killing their peers over arbitray differences. It takes religion to bring an otherwise decent person to commit a heinous act of violence. Again, I invoke Islam as the primary example.

 

[Riven]

Nothing, as far as I can see. Without God, you've just got preference, really, cultural and personal opinion and taste, on which to ground what's moral and immoral. But this is the very same ground on which any culture or person can ground any moral stance. On this ground, Hitler could say his Nazi utopia was morally okay. The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, could use the same ground to declare his killing and eating of young men was morally fine. If morality is just a matter of preference and/or opinion, then no one can say to anyone else, "You shouldn't do that! It's wrong." All that can truly be declared is, "I don't like that," which, as far as I can tell, is all you're saying about your own source of moral authority.

Without God, human beings have to get together and figure it out amongst themselves. A society like the one Hitler built from the ashes of a defeated Germany, was not long for this world. You'll notice it didn't last, because any society built on the foundation of Darwinism, specifically the survival of the fittest, cannot function without uniting every other nation against it. Even Hitler's Reich could not survive such odds.

This is why human beings have to talk and actually decide what kind of society they want to live in. Not invoke the authority of an invisible sky god, but actually put in the work that's required to have a society, while never perfect, is one that every person feels privileged to be a part of. So far, the West has had the most success in this endeavor.

Says who? On what grounds? And on what basis are those grounds universally authoritative? What's "better" in one person's view might not be "better" in the view of another. How do you objectively adjudicate between them? Merely saying, "I think this is better and so do a lot of other people," doesn't work. Hitler could have argued this very same thing; so could Muslims in Iraq killing homosexuals; so could have ancient pagans sacrificing children to demonic idols.

Again, there is no universal authority. Or do we need one to understand that killing each other over trivial differences, is antithetical to a productive and prosperous society.

But I didn't make this equivalency, you did. I was speaking to the fact that both you and the Muslim employ some sort of reasoning, some kind of logic, to arrive at your views. So, then, it doesn't help your case simply to say that your view is more reasonable or logical; the Muslim thinks the very same thing about his view. You have to show how your use of reason and logic is better than that of the Muslim, not merely assert that it is. So far, you haven't done this.

Wrong. Neither thee Mullins nor the Christians employ any kind of reasoning whatsoever. Both of these tribes invoke the authority of their gods as absolute and go from there.

??? I don't believe this. If I did, I wouldn't be a Christian. God's word is His word, not because it simply claims that it is, but because it bears the marks of a divine origin upon it:

1.) Thematic unity.
2.) Fulfilled prophecy.
3.) Historicity.
4.) Survivability.
5.) Effect upon individuals and cultures.
6.) Correspondence to reality.

In these regards (and others) the Bible is wholly unlike the Q'uran, or any other holy book of any other religion. It's only serious ignorance and/or prejudice that lumps them all together.

No, it's not. They're both the same. They're both holy books that claim to be divine revelation from God. They actually mirror each other in many ways because they both come from the same desert. The only notable difference is that Islam claims to be the final revelation from God. Which is precisely why there's never been a reformation.

Your assertion was that the following of these commands was COMMON in Israel. You haven't yet shown that this was so. What's more, you haven't acknowledged the context of such commands, their purpose and whether or not they were actually carried out. You might want to take a gander at Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster" before you answer.

I dont care how common it was. It could have just happened once and I would still condemn the deity that gave those commands as a depraved despot.

As you've stated it, this is simply your opinion. What can you offer that actually makes it objectively and authoritatively binding on everyone else morally? Others think homosexuality is deeply morally repugnant, worthy of death, even. And so? On what basis do you judge who is right and who is wrong without resorting to "the majority rules" fallacy, or personal preference, neither of which carry sufficient moral authority to dictate a universal moral fact?

Well, I would say that they're wrong. You're right though. It is just my opinion. But I'm okay with that because ethics start with opinions, not invocations of the supposed authority of ancient Jewish war gods.

This shows a measure of prejudicial antagonism toward Christians that will make it impossible for you to clearly and fully hear and understand the Christian point of view.

It has never been the practice of biblical Christians to kill homosexuals. Doing so, killing homosexuals, would be directly against the clear teaching of Christ and his apostles, laid out in the New Testament. Unlike the theocracy of OT Israel, Christians are members of a family and kingdom characterized by love, holiness, mercy and grace, not violence and oppression. They are not the "arm" of God used to judge other wicked nations; they are not commanded to stone the wicked, but to urge the rebellious wicked to repent of their sin and be saved (Mark 16:15); they are not called by God to wreak violence and death upon His enemies but to love them (Matthew 22:39; Galatians 5:14) and to wait on God to enact His perfectly holy and just wrath upon the ungodly (Hebrews 10:30-31).

Well, that's good. It's certainly a cut above the Islamic belief. However, I find it very frustrating that Christians use the bible as a weapon against those they personally don't like. We're routinely told by Christians that the Old Testament is no longer in play because Jesus brought with him a new covenant, which is the New Testament.

But Christians will still use Old Testament law to discriminate against those they don't like. Or behavior that they disapprove of. I think this is deeply hypocritical, and many people in the West each year are coming to the same conclusion.

 

[Riven]

Without God, on what grounds could you assert that they were doing wrong? On what grounds do you assert that your view of homosexuality (or that of your culture) is objectively morally right? It seems to me you're just assuming that the trends of morality in modern secular culture are better than those of, say, the Muslim culture. Again, on what objective, authoritative grounds?

Again, I don't think morality is objective. I would use the Islamic nations, or rather the continued state of poverty and barbarism that they all share, as an example of a moral structure that is clearly backwards and doesn't work, either for the nation or anyone else.

The reason why homosexuality is a capital offense still in many Middle Eastern countries, is because the Islamic cults that hold power there, are brutally repressive towards any kind of secular ideas or change that would move the society forward. They are, for all intents and purposes, permanently stuck in the 7th century.

But a society being appalled by something generally doesn't establish their particular moral sensibility as objectively and authoritatively correct, or right. Homosexuality is appalling to a majority of Muslims. In Arabia or Iran, the western secular adoption of homosexuality as a normal thing is disgusting.

I agree. But being disgusted by something is very different from killing someone because you find them disgusting. Do you have to be told by your god which one of these is right or wrong? And let's say God commanded you to kill homosexuals. Would you do it?

What objective, authoritative standard can they both appeal to in grounding their view of homosexuality? The Muslim has Allah as such a source; what does the secular, God-denying person have as an equivalently objective and authoritative source for their moral views?

They have the enlightenment. Which may not be objective in some "supreme" sense. But I would argue is a superior argument for morality and ethics, than invoking the moral authority of an absentee Jewish God, known as Yaweh. Or Allah, if you're Muslim.

This is precisely the trouble with the deadly combination of an objective morality and infusing that with an authority of a divine being. All you have to do is write a holy book and claim that this is the word of that divine being, and you have a perfect recipe for disaster and suffering. Again, that's exactly what's happened to the Middle East.

At least with a subjective morality, it can be challenged with new ideas. That's how, despite the rigid structure of Christianity, western societies have been able to make great strides towards tolerance and peace. Sweden used to be the crown jewel of Europe.

Virtually no crime, very tolerant, very stable. Until they decided to import millions of Muslims into the country. Now it's crime rate is among the worst in all of Europe, and it's now unfortunately known as the rape capital of Europe. And it's so sad because of the progress that was made in the name of secularism has been undone.

 

[Tenchi]

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat, can you think your way into being attracted to the same sex?

I did answer - just not in the way you wanted or expected. Your question here assumes a state-of-affairs about human sexuality that I deny, which is that one's sexual desire for a person has nothing to do with their thought-life. Your question, then, requires that I accept this underlying premise which, as far as I'm concerned, is very much at issue in our back-and-forth. Every normally-functioning human being has sexual desire but that desire is directed by the individual. The convict in prison who takes up sodomizing fellow male inmates is not the victim of a genetic disposition that makes him do so; the lonely shepherd who has sex with his sheep is not propelled by a genetic factor to do so; the guy who only ever experiences "sexual release" by watching porn is not made by his genes to do so; the creep who snatches children from the street and rapes them is not forced by his genetics to do so. If it is the case that the particular orientation of a person's sexual desire is beyond their control, then in each of these circumstances the prison sodomist, or pedophile, or animal molester is merely a victim, helpless to orient their sexual desire differently. Is this what you actually believe? I sure hope not! But it is what your question implies, it seems to me.

My problem with NDE's is that they're so different from each other. They lead people to wildly different conclusions about the afterlife. Some say there is no hell. Others say there is no heaven. Some say they talked to God. Others say there was no God present.

Many NDE's don't endure careful scrutiny and must be set aside as largely unverifiable and thus unhelpful in establishing life after death. But not all are like this. And there are surprisingly universal experiences folks from around the world have had in their NDE's: tunnel and light, looking down on one's body, encountering loved ones, a feeling of deep peace and comfort, witnessing events outside of where one has died, and so on.

I don't think NDE's can supply any more information to us than that the mind and brain are not the same and that the mind (soul) survives the death of the body. I certainly don't trust any of the NDE's that attempt to describe the heavenly hereafter. God tells me in His word what I can expect to follow the permanent death of my body (until the Resurrection, of course) and it is nothing like the silliness of some reports folks have given about the afterlife.

What we never hear about is those that died and experienced nothing. Because that's boring, I guess.

And because we learn nothing from such experiences.

No, they don't. Again, we can't verify anything that people see during an NDE.

??? Please inform yourself better about the research into NDE's before you say stuff like this. Again, take a look at Dr. Gary Habermas's research into NDE's. There is much from many NDE's that can - and has been - verified.

Regardless of what it is though, why are they so wildly different from each other? How can a Christian die and find herself in hell, while any atheist dies and finds himself in heaven having a conversation with Jesus?

It's to this stuff that I turn a deaf ear and blind eye. None of it can be verified like claims of watching the activity of medical staff in an operating room after one has died, or, when brain-dead and one's heart has stopped, watching an ambulance arrive in the hospital parking lot and seeing its roof number and who was taken from it, or noticing a single red shoe on the roof of the hospital in which one has died, or hearing the conversation of people down the hall from where one has died, and so on. These claims can be verified but not claims about heaven or hell. And so, I ignore these both unverifiable and often extremely unbiblical claims about the afterlife.

Why? All I've said is what I think could be happening. That perhaps it is biological and not something supernatural.

I don't think homosexuality is purely supernatural - that is, demonic - in origin. There's more to it, often, than just demonic deception. But the devil is definitely involved, subtly pushing, through quirks of personality, familial experiences, and cultural/social influences, a person toward this sexual perversion.

I know. But that wasn't the point. A person can have perfectly working sex organs, but be born retarded. Do you understand what I'm saying? Sometimes the human body doesn't just work as intended.

But, again, I don't think homosexuality is the body not working as intended. It's a psycho-social thing, encouraged by demonic deception, not just biology gone awry. Nothing you've put forward so far has persuaded me to think otherwise.

Sigh. Thats because science didn't exist in the bronze age. Those men that wrote the bible didn't know anything about genetics. The word hadn't even been invented yet.

But I don't believe homosexuality is a scientific matter. And you haven't given me good reason to think otherwise. Why, then, should I care about the Bible's creation being in proximity to modern science?

I don't have an objective basis for morality, and I don't need God or any other deity to know what's right and wrong.

I didn't ever say you had no basis for knowing the difference between right and wrong, only that you can't prescribe morality for anyone else without an objective and authoritative basis from which to do so. Without God, it's just your moral opinion or preference that you're offering when you say, "That's wrong!" or "That's right!". But we've all got opinions and preferences. Why should yours be more authoritative than anyone else's? Why can't the next person dismiss your moral opinion in favor of their own?

Again, there are children that are raised by atheist parents and they aren't killing their peers over arbitray differences.

Though, naturalistic atheism was the philosophical context within which many tens of millions were killed in the last century in Stalinist Russia, and in communist China (not to mention Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.)

It takes religion to bring an otherwise decent person to commit a heinous act of violence. Again, I invoke Islam as the primary example.

But this is a statement clearly in ignorance of the facts of history - especially within the last century. See above. In comparison to the deadly effect of godless political regimes named above, all religious conflicts in the last thousand years combined are a mere trifle. Even the Crusades, the atheist's favorite go-to example of Christian religious violence, conceding the most extreme death-toll estimates assigned to the Crusades, is multiple tens of millions shy of the death-toll racked up by Stalin alone.

Nothing is more dangerous, more lethal, than the atheistic view that Man is just "molecules in motion," a "DNA-replicating meat-sack." Without God conferring upon each person the enormous intrinsic value that He does, there is no good reason to value the weak, or disabled, or elderly, or anyone deemed "unfit" in some way by those holding power over them. And when this is so, as Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and others have demonstrated, mass killing of human beings is often the result.


Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Without God, human beings have to get together and figure it out amongst themselves. A society like the one Hitler built from the ashes of a defeated Germany, was not long for this world. You'll notice it didn't last, because any society built on the foundation of Darwinism, specifically the survival of the fittest, cannot function without uniting every other nation against it. Even Hitler's Reich could not survive such odds.

But Stalin and Mao both held to a "survival of the fittest" view of things and killed tens of millions in reflection of their view. Despite the incredible oppression and death of atheistic communism in China, it remains in political control to today. Russia, too, has yet to truly cast off its death-dealing communist past, the populace electing a former KGB officer to the highest political office of the country.

And Hitler came very close to dominating Europe entirely and establishing his vile Third Reich. If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it's uncertain when, if ever, America would have participated seriously in resisting Hitler. And without America's help, it's very doubtful Europe would have successfully prevented Hitler's Nazi regime from dominating the entire region. You'll recall, too, that both Italy and Japan joined Hitler's bid for power. There wasn't, then, a universal repudiation of his war-mongering.

Many ancient nations, too, operated under a "survival of the fittest" philosophy and did so, in some cases, for centuries. Even in the Roman Empire, life was terribly cheap, women, children and slaves treated as things to be used and abused without qualm. Plutarch wrote of Carthaginians who "...offered up their own children (as human sacrifices to pagan gods), and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan." (Excerpt from Moralia.)

I don't see, then, that what you've asserted about the soon collapse of any society working on the basis of "survival of the fittest" is true.

This is why human beings have to talk and actually decide what kind of society they want to live in. Not invoke the authority of an invisible sky god, but actually put in the work that's required to have a society, while never perfect, is one that every person feels privileged to be a part of. So far, the West has had the most success in this endeavor.

There is so much fallacious arguing here that it's hard to know where to start in answering it all. First, it's a false dichotomy that either human beings talk and decide together what society they want or they "invoke an invisible sky god." Especially in western democracies, it hasn't been either-or but both-and concerning religion and political/cultural dialogue in society. These things haven't been mutually-exclusive but, rather, the Judeo-Christian worldview has been crucially important to the development of the democratic freedoms we now take for granted in the West.

Second, it's a glaring Strawman that Christians "invoke a sky god," like some ancient pagan might've done. In reality, the philosophical, historical and even scientific basis for Christianity is deeper and more robust than for any other world religion - by far - and affords the Christian a highly-reasoned and reasonable basis for their belief in God.

www.reasonablefaith.org
www.crossexamined.org
www.coldcasechristianity.com
www.str.org

Third, the rights and freedoms every person in North America presently enjoys and the representative, capitalistic democracy under which they live that provides to them the greatest, peace, safety and affluence the world has ever known are owed in no small part to the Judeo-Christian worldview that you want to dismiss. Amazing.

What you're going to see over the next thirty years or so, if there isn't a return to the Judeo-Christian roots of North American culture, is the utter deterioration and violent implosion of North American society and the deadly rise of the cruel, bloodthirsty madness of a society where Man is his own god.

Again, there is no universal authority.

Then you can't point at the Muslim who wants to kill homosexuals and say, "That's wrong!" as though your view is superior to theirs, or more true. At best, without God, all you can do is proclaim your moral preference. But why should anyone care about your moral preference? Why should the Muslim care? He has his own moral preference which he likes better than yours.

No, it's not. They're both the same. They're both holy books that claim to be divine revelation from God. They actually mirror each other in many ways because they both come from the same desert. The only notable difference is that Islam claims to be the final revelation from God. Which is precisely why there's never been a reformation.

By your logic here, I can say that Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same. They were both born of human mothers; they both had two eyes, two arms and legs, and arteries and veins filled with blood; they were both world-famous; the were both born in Europe, and so on. Thus, according to your line of reasoning that you've used in the quotation above, Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same, even though one was a genocidal maniac who murdered millions and the other a woman who gave her life in succour of the downtrodden and impoverished.

What your words above actually show, though, is how little you actually know about either sacred text. No serious scholar of either text would agree with your highly superficial assessment.

I dont care how common it was.

Then you shouldn't have asserted that it was.

It could have just happened once and I would still condemn the deity that gave those commands as a depraved despot.

So? Your condemnation does nothing to prove He actually was a depraved despotic. And for the reasons I've pointed out, such a charge just doesn't hold water when it comes to the Creator and Sustainer of Everything. In fact, in light of who God is, your condemnation, to me, just sounds incredibly petulant and silly.

Well, that's good. It's certainly a cut above the Islamic belief. However, I find it very frustrating that Christians use the bible as a weapon against those they personally don't like. We're routinely told by Christians that the Old Testament is no longer in play because Jesus brought with him a new covenant, which is the New Testament.

But Christians will still use Old Testament law to discriminate against those they don't like. Or behavior that they disapprove of. I think this is deeply hypocritical, and many people in the West each year are coming to the same conclusion.

Homosexuality - and all sexual sin - is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. But Christians are under a different covenant with God than the OT Jews, one that is not nationally theocratic, and that doesn't require a priestly order to mediate between a person and their Creator. The Christian has only one High Priest, Jesus Christ, and through him the Christian has direct access to God.

Anyway, God calls all of His children to holiness, humility, faith and love. And He takes upon Himself the business of changing minds and hearts, making people into who He wants them to be. This is spiritual work He does, not political, or militaristic, and doesn't involve His own forcing others to the Christian way.

What I find really hypocritical, though, is the non-believer imposing their beliefs, values and politics on the believer while telling the believer they must not do the same.

This is all I've got time for. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[Riven]

This is all I've got time for. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Likewise.

 

[reddogs]

Hi guys. I've been wondering whether or not to post this for a few days. I'm just going to go for it!

I understand I'm risking hurtful comments and heated discussions. All I will ask is that everybody stays calm and respectful please. I'm going to share my experience and then relate it to my faith.

I'm a lesbian. I have found women attractive since as long as I can remember. When I was a very small child (probably about 5) I would feel confusion when women around me used to oggle and comment on "sexy" men on television. It felt confusing and even a bit gross. Women, however, took my breath away. Such beauty! I didn't know what lesbianism was though so I didn't think much about this.

I actually realized I was lesbian very late. I was 18. Through my teen years I just thought I was bisexual but "Picky" with males. I tried dating boys but I was awkward, grossed out and didn't want to do anything outside of normal friendship things. I just assumed it is because I was an "innocent" girl and also an abuse survivor.

I suppose I was thinking about the signs and it just clicked when I was 18. "Oh my goodness.. I'm gay!" I felt scared for some reason. I guess I was worried what my future would look like with this knowledge. I felt wrong for feeling scared but I couldn't help it. It is a potentially life changing realization.

Shortly after this I met a man. We were friends and he helped me navigate life being abused. For example he helped me get a job and would get me home safely. I won't get into that here as that is for a different time and I may of already said about it.

Fast forward to today. We live together "socially married" and are happier and closer than ever.

I did share my experience of this "lesbian dating a man" once on a different non religion related forum and was met with intense hostility. How can a woman be gay and with a man???

I met a girl on there who messaged me because secretly she was going through the same experience. She set up an experiment by creating a fake profile on this forum and made a fake thread "gay man dating a woman" and it was very similar to mine. She was met with positivity and love. So clearly it was a sexism issue rather than a sexuality issue that caused the hostility I received.

The hostility was so severe people tried to say I was being abusive to my partner JUST by being with him. Incredibly hurtful as I'm his carer and have saved his life multiple times already. He has a very serious disease called CESD (look it up it's on a rare disorders website if you wish).

Anyway. I'd like to state my opinion now on homosexuality and faith. This is merely my opinion so please bare this in mind. Yours may differ and that is absolutely fine.

There is no such thing as "former gay". To say this is actually sinful. Here's why I think this: My experience as a gay person clearly shows me it is a mental illness you are born with. We are all natural sinners because Adam and Eve used their free will to sin in the garden of Eden. It is important you repent, confess, acknowledge your sins. If you deny them you are not being honest with yourself, others or God.

Lets break this down. I believe the following:

Gay is a mental illness. Humans are a type of animal. Basic biology is that animals that reproduce sexually need to attract a mate. If gay is normal for a species then said species may die out due to them not reproducing. This totally dismantles the belief some gay people have that "everybody is gay. there is no such thing as straight". We believe other mental illness' are illness' for the same basic reason. They cause humans to behave in a way that challenges their health and state of being alive. Such as depression for example.

We know depression is an illness and self harm is sinful. That does not mean depressed people are condemned for hell, hated and shut out does it? Why treat gay people like that then? We ALL sin. It is God's job to judge not man. God gave man free will.

I do believe we can still classify it as a sexual orientation however. It is a sexual orientation. But it is an unnatural one clearly caused by a biological fault. Aka an illness.

There is a difference between a gay person and a PRACTICING gay person. You cannot be a former gay person. But you can be a NON PRACTICING gay person.

How are gay people saved then?

Well. As I keep stating we are ALL sinners. Every human being has an inclination to a specific deadly sin. In this example we are talking about Lust.

You may of heard of famous gay people who were "closet" but sleeping around with members of the same sex. If gay is to be considered a sexual orientation, then we cannot continue with the sympathy for these promiscuous gay people. It has nothing to do with them being gay in itself. If a gay person is in a straight relationship, they do not automatically start needing to have sex with many of the same sex. That is a lie.

Straight people are not automatically promiscuous because of their orientation. Some are but that is a CHOICE.

In other words. As a result of the sin of Lust (and adultery), some straight and some gay people choose to sleep around. They do not deserve sympathy and acceptance in doing this because it is not victimhood or being "trapped" in their relationships. It is a choice. The real victim is the partner who is being lied to and cheated on.

The people who believe in these lies are the same people who would respond with hostility to me, and as you can see from my previous example, they already did. I am a gay person but I'm not their image of gay. These people do not want you to know I exist.

Am I gay? Yes. Am I growing in faith? Yes. Am I attracted to my partner? Yes.

These people cannot grasp those concepts. But it is my truth. And further supports my belief that it is another mental illness. In spite of it, I am still able to connect with the opposite sex. I don't feel lust for them like I can for women. But as a loving person I am capable of falling for the personality of the opposite sex. I am also capable of finding my partner attractive because I am in love with him and recognise his good looks (sort of like you may recognise a celebrity of the same sex is good looking despite being straight). I am just in love with him too because of the selfless acts he committed out of being a good caring person for me.

As a result of Leviticus 18:22 (I hope I'm quoting the right one lol) I have made the decision to not practice my homosexuality. Not because I hate myself. I'm not "going without". I'm not "denying myself". I'm not a "victim". As I am in a happy loving relationship with my partner, I have no reason to have relations with anyone else man or woman. I'm very monogamous and have 0 desire to do this. So what difference does it make if I choose not to practice my lesbianism?? I am going to marry my partner legally and stay with him. I will be faithful and monogamous throughout. I will follow the biblical teachings of being a good wife. And again, I'm not a "victim". I am happy this way. It keeps everything holy, in balance, peaceful and good.

So in conclusion I am exposing the lies people are feeding you. You can be non practicing gay and perfectly happy and fulfilled. Being gay and having an uncontrollable urge to be promiscuous unless you are "accepted" is a lie. A gay person CAN be in love with the opposite sex. The cause of the initial attraction is just different that is all.

I understand it is a hard concept to wrap your head around. I struggle to explain it properly! But I'm trying my best. If you have questions please do ask me. I want to answer and help you guys understand because gay people like me do exist and awareness is a good thing as my existence proves that you can be gay and faithful. They really don't want you to know these things but awareness is important as it can show young people they are not automatically hated by God just because they fancy the same sex. This is one of the biggest reasons why young turn away from God. Society FALSELY teaches people that God is hateful, controlling and restrictive. It's all lies!

I will not be responding to blatant homophobia or hurtful responses. But I will respond to any questions. No genuine question will offend me at all. I'm mostly just hoping the friends I have made here won't hate me for this I promise the above is 100% my truth based on my experiences.

It is like all sin, we can only overcome (be transformed) through the power of Christ. I feel for you, as one who was as close as a daughter to me has told us much the same, and she knows the truth. I can only pray as I feel what I can only call a state of shock. My wife tells me she saw it from before, but I am like unable to say or counsel her, only pray.... and cry...

 

[Zeth4500]

i believe we might need to have a rule on this forum to dismiss trollposts regarding being homosexual- confessing and still pursuing it- and claiming to be christian, it is nonsense