A question about Catholisicm

[cerridwen]

Now, I grew up Catholic, and I've yet to get a straight answer to this question, I never got it. (I'm not bashing the religion, I don't want anyone to think that!)

How can a religion that promotes the idea of 'love one another' etc etc but promotes the opposite idea of discriminating against homosexuals and treat women as second class citizens? You either love EVERYONE equally or you don't, right? How can the true core teachings of Jesus be contradicted by the church?

[Smudge]

Do you have children?

Do you teach them right from wrong?
Do you have to say to them some things are wrong (for their good and protection)?
Does that mean you don't love them?

I'm not a Catholic by the way.

I am a Christian who is very much for the true and full equality of women, which can be bourne out from the bible, with the correct understanding of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words, and the understanding of culture to do with women, (which Jesus frees from), and the correct study of the context of certain so-called difficult passages)

See my web page...
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/marionburdon/index11.html

God bless :)

[cerridwen]

I don't have children, but I would imagine that when I do, that I would naturally teach them what is right and what is wrong. It's human nature to protect children, right?

I've checked out your website, it's interesting although doesn't answer my question. I've done bible study growing up, so I've a pretty good understanding of what the bible says and how different christian religions interepret them.

I'm not sure why you asked me all that stuff about teaching them right from wrong for their protection... are you saying that telling them that there's something morally wrong with a certain group of people for their protection? Because honestly, that makes little sense.

Why not raise kids with the idea that everyone - regardless of their sexual orientation or race or sex - is equal? If you're really fighting for the whole morality of a person, wouldn't it just be better to teach them to treat everyone equally?

See, I was raised in a family where one uncle is gay and the other uncle is divorced and living with his girlfriend for about 10 years now... My dad, being the 'morally responsible' catholic that he is, chooses to pick religion over his own brothers and bible-thump against them because they're both living in sin.

That's what makes little sense to me, it's people like this (my dad was just an example) who are at this whole confliction - and it's just that, a confliction - of morals over family. It's rather bizarre, if you ask me. But to each their own...

[Smudge]

I'm not sure why you asked me all that stuff about teaching them right from wrong for their protection...
I was just trying to point out that true love sometimes requires that we have to point out that some stuff is wrong and harmful, physically, emotionally or spiritually, as you said this...

You either love EVERYONE equally or you don't, rightReal love doesn't always sound ''nice.''...:(


Why not raise kids with the idea that everyone - regardless of their sexual orientation or race or sex - is equal?

of course, everyone does have equal value.
But does everything, that everyone does, have equal value?

[Epiphany]

If someone is as religious as they say they are, they would try to have love for all their brothers and sisters. As far as the aspect of homosexuality, Since it's a direct quote from God ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable" - Leviticus 18:2). However, a true believer would remember to, "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

I don't personally agree with many teachings of churches today because most of them have gone wayward from the original teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus said he would build his church on Peter (the rock), but many different branches of faith have seemed to draw away from Peter's teachings. For example, Jesus said to do ALL things in his name, this includes baptism. There is not one single scriptural reference in the bible that says to be lightly sprinkled with water. The word, "baptism", comes from the Greek word, "baptizo", which means to dip, immerse, or bury. When John the Baptist started to preach baptism for repentance, he baptized them in the river Jordan. When Jesus was baptized by John, it says in Mark 1:9, "As Jesus came up out of the water", indicating he was submersed in water. Most churches won't baptize children because they do not have the concept of repentance. You cannot repent for your child, everyone must repent of their own free will. Alot of churches don't teach the infilling of the holy ghost. Isaiah 28:9-12, speaks of stammering lips and another tongue that God would give his people. Jesus said, in John 3:5, that one cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven unless he is born of the water and the spirit. Jesus doesn't leave room for options in that statement. Peter says in Acts 2, to repent, everyone of you, and be baptized in the name of Jesus and you will recieve the holy ghost. Alot of religions add their own personal beliefs into the picture. Jesus said, in Matthew 15:9, "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men". Not many churches preach about fasting, but there are several examples in the Bible where people fasted, including Jesus himself. These are direct teachings from Jesus, given to his disciples and told to be preached to all nations. But many different factions don't teach all of these things. Revelation 18 warns not to add or take anything away from the word of God. But, if you add or take things away from religion, is that not the same thing? Why must men forsake God's commandments for their own convient traditions?

[Sunburst]

I always wondered that. It's like "Love one another, no matter what" and stuff, but then goes on to say how bad gay people are. You know what? No! It's not a frickin choice! If it was, I bet like 3 people in the world would be gay, if that. We're not choosing to be greedy and lustful, I'm not lustful. I'm not planning on going far with my gf until we're married, I don't go off on how I wanna screw every girl I see, there's nothing lustful about it. Also, the religious groups say how our lifestyle is so dangerous, and we all doi drugs and have random sex and stuff, hate to tell you, but straight people do it A LOT more than homosexuals do. It's like the bible says not to stereotype, but then goes off about how we're all the same, dirty lustful drug-using greedy anti-Christs.

[Smudge]

It's like the bible says not to stereotype, but then goes off about how we're all the same, dirty lustful drug-using greedy anti-Christs.no Christians I know talk like that about homosexuals.
If they did, I would have nothing to do with them, and the bible does not say what you think.

[Sunburst]

I'm not bashing the bible (I'm Catholic if you wanna label it), I'm simply saying that almost all the Catholic or Christian websites I visit describe gays as lustful and dirty and Satanists and crap..

[Smudge]

Well, I visit Christian web sites everyday, (not Catholic), and don't find that.
You're going to the wrong ones :(

[cerridwen]

of course, everyone does have equal value.
But does everything, that everyone does, have equal value?Absolutely. The true sinner is the one who discriminates other people.

[Smudge]

of course, everyone does have equal value.
But does everything, that everyone does, have equal value?Absolutely. The true sinner is the one who discriminates other people.
Everything?? really?

Do you know what I am saying? I am being objective about ''everything.''
Murder?????????
Sorry- I must discriminate against murderers then, and child abusers and many other things people do...unless they 'repent' of them...then everything changes.

[meishka]

wat about masturbtion? spilling the seed? or abortion?

[WayfaringStranger]

Now, I grew up Catholic, and I've yet to get a straight answer to this question, I never got it. (I'm not bashing the religion, I don't want anyone to think that!)

How can a religion that promotes the idea of 'love one another' etc etc but promotes the opposite idea of discriminating against homosexuals and treat women as second class citizens? You either love EVERYONE equally or you don't, right? How can the true core teachings of Jesus be contradicted by the church?
well there is the idea that the catholic leadership has been corrupt for along time, hence the reformation. there is also hardly any evidence of women as second class citizens, i dont know where that occours, if you want to point out where it exists, ill glady check into it. as far as discriminating against homosexuals, i'd also say that this very misunderstood, on the part of the church, and on the part of a homosexual. there is alot of talk in the bible about sodomy and how its wrong. who can understand the mind of god? but i would think sodomy to be insulting to him, as his greatest gift to us is our sexuality and procreative nature. i think using our sexuality in a way that is not procreative, is insulting to him, and there fore destructive.

now cerridwen, could you tell me what roll, if any, sodomy has in Wicca?

[Ayesha]

good question, I think.
Though my parents are catholic, they never told me it was wrong to be homosexual, they always tried to explain me that everyone has the same rights and should be respected no matter what were their sexual preferences...
Of course the position of Church is different. The official position of the Church is very simple and full of prejudices, in my opinion. As you said and I totally agree with you, it goes against the teachings of Christ, because Jesus told us that we should love and respect eachother... He said that for all.
Anyway, I think that you can be a catholic, but mostly you're a human being and you must have the capacity to decide what's right and what's wrong. So... You may be a catholic and still tell your sons that there's nothing wrong about being gay.

[SvgGrdnBeauty]

good question, I think.
Though my parents are catholic, they never told me it was wrong to be homosexual, they always tried to explain me that everyone has the same rights and should be respected no matter what were their sexual preferences...
Of course the position of Church is different. The official position of the Church is very simple and full of prejudices, in my opinion. As you said and I totally agree with you, it goes against the teachings of Christ, because Jesus told us that we should love and respect eachother... He said that for all.
Anyway, I think that you can be a catholic, but mostly you're a human being and you must have the capacity to decide what's right and what's wrong. So... You may be a catholic and still tell your sons that there's nothing wrong about being gay.
I agree. We can still have religious beliefs and have moral beliefs...that's why, although I am Catholic and I go to church...that there's somethings about organized religion, the politics of it that need to be done away with. (This is just my feeling...I don't want to offend anyone). If I support two people who want to love eachother, regardless of their gender...or if I believe that a girl raped on the street should be able to have an abortion because she cannot care for the child....does that mean I love Jesus any less? Does that mean I love God any less? I don't think it does. Religion is between you, your inner self and your God...none of these politics or the acts of anyone else should have anything to do with your spiritual connection...I'm not saying do away with the Church...but instead do with it to spread ideas of peace and love and not those of anomosity to those who are different to you...there's a fine line between direct translation of the Bible and not and I don't think that we are to tell someone how they should translate it within themselves....

...If that didn't make the least bit of sense...I'm sorry.

[Alsharad]

I agree. We can still have religious beliefs and have moral beliefs...that's why, although I am Catholic and I go to church...that there's somethings about organized religion, the politics of it that need to be done away with. (This is just my feeling...I don't want to offend anyone).
I would agree, but if you want to remove corruption and sin from the church, you would have to remove EVERYONE in it. In effect, to do away with the corruption is to dissolve the church. So long as we are imperfect, corruptible beings, there will be corruption and sin within the church.

If I support two people who want to love eachother, regardless of their gender...or if I believe that a girl raped on the street should be able to have an abortion because she cannot care for the child....does that mean I love Jesus any less? Does that mean I love God any less?
If you told your parents that you loved them and then never obeyed their commands, would they believe you? Part of love is submission. If my wife asks me to go to the store at midnight, I do it. Why? Because I love her. If God sets certain standards and we blatantly ignore those standards, can we really say that we love Him as much as we should? It is important to note that God expects us to love homosexuals and those who have had an abortion. We can love the sinner and hate the sin.

I don't think it does. Religion is between you, your inner self and your God...none of these politics or the acts of anyone else should have anything to do with your spiritual connection...I'm not saying do away with the Church...but instead do with it to spread ideas of peace and love and not those of anomosity to those who are different to you...
We should never have animosity to other PEOPLE. But we should definitely have animosity towards heretical IDEAS. We can accept people lovingly without have to agree with everything they believe. Since, as Christians, we believe there IS a real, absolute truth, we can test the ideas and opinions in light of Scripture to determine its acceptability to God (and thus to ourselves).

there's a fine line between direct translation of the Bible and not and I don't think that we are to tell someone how they should translate it within themselves....You are wrong on this point. Hermeneutics is a science/art. We cannot just let someone re-translate it to their hearts content. If you mean that we should let them interpret Scripture in their own way, then I think you are still wrong. Why? Because it isn't our interpretation that matters. It is the interpretation of the author that matters on any written material. What does the author most likely mean when he says blah, blah, blah, etc.? Let me give you an example. Suppose you wrote a paper on how blue was the best color for a car and then I read it. Afterwards I talk to you about how I agree with you and that blue is a horrible color for a car. You say "what?! Blue is the best color! That's not what a wrote!" And I say, "But that's how I read it and I have already told everyone I know that you hate blue cars!"

What have I done? Easy. I have misinterpreted your paper. Even if I pull passages in support of my position, I have misinterpreted it. How can I say this? Because in regards to that paper, you have authority. Authority means "right based on authorship." When it comes to your paper, you are right and anyone who disagrees with you in regards to the intent and meaning of your paper is wrong. This holds for all written material... including the Bible. Our interpretations, if they differ from the intent and interpretations of the original author, are flat out wrong.

[Dizzy Man]

Cerridwen,

I don't know much about Catholicism, but if they say homosexuality is a sin, and women are inferior, then it's pretty obvious that they've just plain gotten it wrong. I would strongly advise you think about changing to another religion. One that isn't sexist and homophobic.

If God didn't like homosexuals then why would he make them? There is nothing in The Bible to indicate God has any opinion on homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't even recognised until a couple of centuries ago. There was no word for it. So anyone who thinks they've read the word in The Bible is kidding themselves.

There is a line in the Old Testament that says two men must not sleep together. But there are very many strange rules in The Old Testament, and if you follow one, you must follow them all:

1. Two men must not sleep together.
2. Men must not sleep with female employees
3. Men must not cut their hair or their beards
4. Do not touch a woman who is menstruating, or even touch a chair she has sat on
5. Do not wear cotton-polyester blends
6. Women must not wear a man's clothes
7. Do not sell your dog and give the money to the church
8. A bride must not lack proof of virginity
9. It is a sin to be a descendant of someone born out of wedlock
10. Do not get a tattoo
11. Do not sow different seeds in one field
12. Women must be quiet and submissive and cover their heads at all times
13. Slaves must obey their masters and never want their freedom
14. Do not eat shrimp or pork

The Old Testament is believed to be inspired directly by God, but it was written by men, not God, and I'm sure it is not a flawless interpretation of God's will. I find it hard to believe God would want us to follow all those strange rules.

But even if he did, they are no longer relevant since Jesus formed a new covenant with man. Christians do not follow these old rules. The vast majority of Jews don't, either. If Catholics follow these rules, then they obviously have never heard of Christ!

If you are a gay man, and you want to observe the rules of the Old Testament, then don't sleep with other men. And don't shave your beard. And ask every woman you meet if she's menstruating, to make sure you never touch a menstruating woman.

But whether gay men have sex or not is nobody's concern but their own.

The Bible tells us that God loves everyone, and we should love everyone, and we should never judge anyone, because God judges them. It's repeated over and over in both the Old and New Testaments that we should love everyone and never persecute people because they are different to us. The Bible makes it perfectly clear how much God hates persecution. Any religion that discriminates against gay men, or against anyone, is a false religion.

I strongly object to Catholicism, because of its view on homosexuality. But it's not my place to judge Catholics. I must love and embrace them, like I love and embrace all people. We must not persecuate anyone.

[SvgGrdnBeauty]

What have I done? Easy. I have misinterpreted your paper. Even if I pull passages in support of my position, I have misinterpreted it. How can I say this? Because in regards to that paper, you have authority. Authority means "right based on authorship." When it comes to your paper, you are right and anyone who disagrees with you in regards to the intent and meaning of your paper is wrong. This holds for all written material... including the Bible. Our interpretations, if they differ from the intent and interpretations of the original author, are flat out wrong.
I meant...not so much the facts in the Bible or liturature, but the abstract themes that could be left up to interpretation. An example would be creation. OK, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Well, say that when this occured...a day in heaven is different from that on earth...and so that a day in heaven could be millions of years on earth (at the time of creation)...so that the Biblical creation is right, but evolution is right as well...

...that's what I am saying. Who's to say I'm right or wrong either? I'm not asking you to change your ideas...I'm just stating mine...

[gnrm23]

heh...

as a practicing lutheran (elca), i wanna know why you're pickin' on roman catholics...

[Jozak]

I am a practicing Catholic. I was never taught women or gays were inferior, just that the sin of homosexuality was wrong.

I think there is some confusion about women being "inferior". Women are not allowed to be priests, so that could confuse some people, but the reasoning is not becasue women are inferior to men. (Although I think women should be able to be priests, it just has to do with tradition)

The Church has to set moral standards. I may not agree with all of them, but I can see why they do. There are passages in the bible condemning homosexuality, but honestly, I don't beleive that a good Christian who happens to be gay will go to hell. My second cousin is a Catholic convert who is gay, and is a great person. That man is not going to hell just becasue he is gay, hell he has been with the same guy for like 20 years--I give him props, a lot of straight couples can't do that!

[Dizzy Man]

There are passages in the bible condemning homosexuality...No, actually there is only one passage, and it doesn't condemn homosexuality, it condemns men having sex with men.

It's in the sexual code given to Moses in Leviticus 18. The emphasis here is on making sure the Israelites remain God's separate, chosen people. They're given a list of commands to avoid all kinds of specific sexual practices. The relevant one is in verse 22, where the Israelites are instructed, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". The punishment for this sounds very strict: "They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads". But there are two other things we must consider. One is that the Hebrew word translated as "detestable" carries with it a strong connotation regarding idolatrous practices; this is lost in the translation. The other is that the death sentence prescribed here is also prescribed for a number of other offenses, including doing any work at all on the Sabbath (Saturday), which most Christians and Jews do.

You either follow all these irrelevant Old Testament laws that do not apply to you, or you don't. You can't pick and choose.

[Jozak]

You might want to read Romans as well.......just for your future knowledge.

At any rate, I don't think Gays are going to hell because they are gay, I have a hard time beleiving that, regardless of what most churches think.

[Dizzy Man]

If most churches think that gays are going to hell then most churches are wrong, and are giving us intelligent believers a bad name.

[Jozak]

I agree, it's one of the few things I don't agree with Catholicism on, but my church does not say flat out they are going to hell, though.

[HuckFinn]

Dizzy Man,


Pro-gay revisionist theology is untenable:


http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/marco2.html (http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/marco2.html)



Jozak,

Catholicism makes no allowance for practicing homosexuals to be saved:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

[Dizzy Man]

Huck, thanks for the link!

I'd love to tread all that, but have you seen how long it is!?

It seems to conclude that there are some gay activists who have told lies, and talks a lot about gay rights. But that has nothing to do with my opinion. My opinion is based on the facts. I don't really care about gay rights, to be honest. But I do care about people misinterpreting The Bible.

I've read the first part that talks about Sodom. The writer of that article says that The Bible keeps talking about men wanting to rape angels as 'perverse' and so clearly homosexuality is wrong. Surely raping angels is perverse enough, without it mattering whether they are male or female?

If you could point out any flaws with what I said in my earlier post in this thread then I would be interested to hear it. If what I said is true, then how can you deny it?

In particular, if it is so wrong for men to sleep with other men, then isn't it just as wrong for a man to sleep with a female employee? Why don't these 'churches' care about that as much as they care about men sleeping together? What makes one line of the Old Testament so important, and all the other thousands of lines so irrelevant?

And what is the actual reason that God supposedly doesn't like men sleeping together? Everything else that God asks us has a logical reason behind it. There is no logical reason for God to care what sex people choose to sleep with or pair with. The only implication it has is that if you're gay you can't have children. But neither do celibate people. Why are there no alleged warnings about celibacy in The Bible?

[Jozak]

Jozak,

Catholicism makes no allowance for practicing homosexuals to be saved:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp)
I did not see anywhere in that article where it specifically said "Homosexuals are going to hell" or anything along those lines. (NOt trying to be difficult, I read the article several times)

My point is most everyday Catholics are not anti-homosexuality or as vocal against it like a lot of fundementalists are, that is all I am saying

[HuckFinn]

I've read the first part that talks about Sodom. The writer of that article says that The Bible keeps talking about men wanting to rape angels as 'perverse' and so clearly homosexuality is wrong. Surely raping angels is perverse enough, without it mattering whether they are male or female?I quote from another article:
Some have maintained that the sin of Sodom was a serious breach of the rules of oriental hospitality. The men of Sodom were merely anxious to interrogate Lot's visitors to see if their intentions were hostile (to "know" their credentials). Yet, in so doing, they flouted the cultural obligation of show hospitality toward the sojourner. The context, however, makes it clear that their demands were sexual in nature. Why else would Lot offer his own virgin daughters as a substitute (Gen. 19:8) and the Levite, his concubine, whom the men of Gibeah "knew and abused all night long" (Judg. 19:25). This is how Jewish and patristic sources, without exception, interpreted these texts (see, for example, Philo On Abraham 133<->136; Josephus Antiquities 1.200<->201; Methodius Symposium 5.5; Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.19; John Chrysostom Homilies on Genesis 43.17).

But is homosexual activity even an issue here? Is the real concern not sexual abuse? Here Lot's and the Levite's offers of a heterosexual substitution are key. They indicate that while rape was considered a grievous offense, homosexual rape was doubly so--so much so, that the offer of one's own daughters (in Lot's case) was thought to be the lesser of two evils. The implicit condemnation of homosexual activity is inescapable.

- http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?151




In particular, if it is so wrong for men to sleep with other men, then isn't it just as wrong for a man to sleep with a female employee? Why don't these 'churches' care about that as much as they care about men sleeping together? What makes one line of the Old Testament so important, and all the other thousands of lines so irrelevant?Again, it is not merely "one line of the Old Testament" that condemns homosexuality.



And what is the actual reason that God supposedly doesn't like men sleeping together? Everything else that God asks us has a logical reason behind it. There is no logical reason for God to care what sex people choose to sleep with or pair with.Are you suggesting that God’s complementary design of humanity as male and female is entirely arbitrary? That’s absurd. The aberrant nature of homosexuality is self-evident:


http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/tomschmidt.html (http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/tomschmidt.html)


Jozak,

Catholicism clearly teaches that all unrepentant sinners (including homosexuals) are eternally condemned:

http://www.catholic.com/library/hell_there_is.asp

[Dizzy Man]

[...]Lot's and the Levite's offers of a heterosexual substitution are key. They indicate that while rape was considered a grievous offense, homosexual rape was doubly so--so much so, that the offer of one's own daughters (in Lot's case) was thought to be the lesser of two evils. The implicit condemnation of homosexual activity is inescapable.


How do we know that Lot offered his daughters because he didn't want the men to have sex with other men? To me it seems obvious from the text that Lot, like any decent person, would not want men to rape angels. Angels are holy, and their rape would be a terrible and perverse thing.

Even if Lot was homophobic (which doesn't seem likely to me), Lot is not God. Lot was a human being, and human beings are not perfect.


Again, it is not merely "one line of the Old Testament" that condemns homosexuality.
That wasn't my point. My point was: why is one of God's rules in the Old Testament so much more important than all the other stuff?

My answer would be that the people who think God doesn't like homosexual activity are letting their personal feelings interfere with their objectivity when interpreting The Bible. Probably 99.9% of Jews and Christians do not follow all those old rules, so why should any of them care about one of the rules so much? The answer is that they are biased by their human instincts.

There is no logical reason for God to care what sex people choose to sleep with or pair with.
Are you suggesting that God’s complementary design of humanity as male and female is entirely arbitrary? That’s absurd.

I don't understand what you're saying. If God doesn't like us doing something, there must be a reason, right? So what is the reason God doesn't want men having sex with men? Does it hurt anyone? No. Does it cheat anyone? No. Does it insult God? No. Is it an indulgence that occupies people's time in an unwholesome way? No more than heterosexual sex with a condom, or masturbation, or heterosexual couples who spend a lot of time kissing and cuddling and doing little else.

If you think procreation is of any relevance to the argument, why doesn't God hate celibate priests? God clearly doesn't hate people who don't have children. Why would he?

[HuckFinn]

Dizzy Man,

Did you even bother to read any of the articles I cited?

Unlike kosher laws, the biblical condemnations of homosexuality are not confined to the Mosaic Law. They trace back to Genesis and are reiterated in the New Testament.

Moreover, the harmful physical, psychological, and social consequences of homosexual conduct are abundant.

[Dizzy Man]

Huck, both the articles you cited were extremely long. It would take me hours to read them, as I am a very slow reader. I have bookmarked them both. I scanned through the first one and responded to the parts I read.

Although I appreciate you posting the links, I would find it more useful if you, having read them both, could bring to my attention the key points that you think I am failing to grasp.

If I say to you: "if God doesn't want men to be gay, then why does he make them gay?", why don't you just answer the question in a simple sentence or paragraph, without citing anything. I agree that I can learn more from the articles, but surely if you wholeheartedly believe what you are saying then you should be able to immediately give me a straight answer in your own words?

[HuckFinn]

I don't believe that God "makes" people gay. I believe that we live in a fallen world and that we all inherit various sinful predispositions. Some are able to find deliverance from their homosexual desires and live happily as heterosexuals. Others are called to remain celibate. (I could cite some online testimonials from former homosexuals, but I don't want to overwhelm you.)

[Dizzy Man]

Huck, I think I can understand your point of view.

I know that God asks us to abandon many of the 'sinful' instincts we are born with, such as anger, greed and rivalry. Apparently, you class homosexual urges along with these others.

But this would require homosexuality to be a fairly common instinctive desire, shared by most people to varying degrees (such as the desire to risk our lives for excitement); rather than the conventional view of homosexuality as a distinct condition that we are born with, such as people who are born blind or autistic.

I think until homosexuality is understood better there's no way to say which is the case. There are an awful lot of bisexual men. I'm straight, but as I understand it many (if not most) men sometimes have gay thoughts. This would seem to indicate that it is a common instinctive desire. Although on the other hand there are some gay men who just seem to be born with the mind of a woman.

And I wonder why other animals are gay? Animals killing each other is an important part of nature, but what purpose do gay animals serve? Homosexuality can't be a result of man's free will, since other animals don't have that free will and they are gay.

But either way, whether homosexuality is a natural instinct, or a condition, what seperates homosexual desires from other 'sinful' desires such as anger, jealousy, pride etc. is that there is nothing negative about homosexuality. It hurts no one. There is no reason for it to be wrong, outisde of social tradition and heterosexual revulsion.

Did Jesus teach us anything that doesn't seem to have a reason behind it? Everything Jesus says seems spot on, and it is fair and good. But if he did reenforce the notion that homosexuality is a sin, it was surely the only thing he ever said that has no reason (which would seem like an addition made by the author, to me).

[HuckFinn]

rather than the conventional view of homosexuality as a distinct condition that we are born with, such as people who are born blind or autistic.This is far from proven.


I think until homosexuality is understood better there's no way to say which is the case.Regardless, biblical teaching is clear. You obviously don't consider Scripture authoritative, but you should at least be honest about this, instead of pretending that the Bible is somehow ambiguous on the subject.


And I wonder why other animals are gay? Animals killing each other is an important part of nature, but what purpose do gay animals serve? Homosexuality can't be a result of man's free will, since other animals don't have that free will and they are gay.First, I know of no "gay" animals that mate for life. Some animals might hump another of the same sex when given no other options, but that's comparable to the behavior of some sailors or prisoners. It's hardly an argument for the "normalcy" of homosexuality.

Second, unlike animals, humans act by choice, not mere instinct.


But either way, whether homosexuality is a natural instinct, or a condition, what seperates homosexual desires from other 'sinful' desires such as anger, jealousy, pride etc. is that there is nothing negative about homosexuality. It hurts no one. There is no reason for it to be wrong, outisde of social tradition and heterosexual revulsion.You obviously haven't read the Thomas Schmidt article I cited.


Did Jesus teach us anything that doesn't seem to have a reason behind it? Everything Jesus says seems spot on, and it is fair and good. But if he did reenforce the notion that homosexuality is a sin, it was surely the only thing he ever said that has no reason (which would seem like an addition made by the author, to me).Of course. You are the ultimate arbiter of moral truth, and Jesus must agree with you.

[Dizzy Man]

Homosexuality is very common in other animals. Do a Google search and you will see for yourself.

As far as I'm aware, humans are the only species who repress our homosexuality. After all, animals can't read The Bible, so how would they know homosexuality was sinful!?

I'll read your articles over the weekend, since you don't seem to want to disclose any facts from them to back up your arguments!

[Stiff_Bizquette]

discriminating against homosexuals and treat women as second class citizenswell in our religion it is against old testament law to be homosexual that is why we think less of them it just so happens humans really point this one out, funny thing is its not one of the ten commandments and thou shalt not commit adultrey is but if u had a queer run for president and bill clinton run again guess who would win?

umm sex was made for humans to live, we (me included) have made it more of an entertainment instead of sacred act that should be saved for marriage. it is to bring life into the world not for fun.

about women, we dont discriminate against them really we simply dont let them be in the higher positions. america has yet to have a female president and no country i know of has lasted to amazingly long with a female running the government. (no offense i realize some women are good at this and some far exceed men.) the bible says the men should be in charge and in few instances the woman is given this position for example ehster.

[Dizzy Man]

well in our religion it is against old testament law to be homosexual that is why we think less of them No offence, but you don't sound like you've read a word of The Bible. Like many "Christians" who are against homosexuality, you seem to be concentrating on one tiny line of The Bible, and completely disregarding all the hundreds of other rules, and the overall messages that are reenforced over and over in both the old and new testament.

This is a good example of religion based around personal feelings rather than on what The Bible actually tells us.

[Stiff_Bizquette]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiff_Bizquette
well in our religion it is against old testament law to be homosexual that is why we think less of them

No offence, but you don't sound like you've read a word of The Bible. Like many "Christians" who are against homosexuality, you seem to be concentrating on one tiny line of The Bible, and completely disregarding all the hundreds of other rules, and the overall messages that are reenforced over and over in both the old and new testament.

This is a good example of religion based around personal feelings rather than on what The Bible actually tells us.how have u come to the conclusion that i havent read a word of the bible i answered the guys question. did he ask about all of the other rules? No. did i claim i followed the other rules? No. he asked why we think less of him and i told him. and what further confuses me is i did not even run homosexuality into the ground i said that it wasnt even as bad as we make it out to be when compared to thou shalt not commit adultry wich is one of the 10 commandments.

i believe your problem is you just wanted to say a christian didnt read the bible i went easier on it than most any christian you will know and i backed it up with opinions that are against modern christianity.

[Dizzy Man]

how have u come to the conclusion that i havent read a word of the bible i answered the guys question. did he ask about all of the other rules? No. did i claim i followed the other rules? No. he asked why we think less of him and i told him.Yes but your post sounded self-contradictory. The Bible teaches us to love everyone and not to judge anyone. If you think less of someone because of the sex of whom they're attracted to then you are rejecting the teachings of The Bible.

...and what further confuses me is i did not even run homosexuality into the ground i said that it wasnt even as bad as we make it out to be when compared to thou shalt not commit adultry wich is one of the 10 commandments.Fair enough. The 10 commandments are obviously far more important and you have acknowledged this. It just gets to me when people claiming to be Christians are bigoted and intolerant of other people's ways, when the whole point of Christianity is to be respectful, humble and tolerant towards everyone.

i believe your problem is you just wanted to say a christian didnt read the bible i went easier on it than most any christian you will know and i backed it up with opinions that are against modern christianity.I have never personally met a Christian who was against homosexuality. I have definitely met gay Christians though. 1 in 10 people are gay (supposedly) so 1 in 10 Christians must also be gay.

[Stiff_Bizquette]

Yes but your post sounded self-contradictory. The Bible teaches us to love everyone and not to judge anyone. If you think less of someone because of the sex of whom they're attracted to then you are rejecting the teachings of The Biblethe bible does not teach us not to judge any one. we read judge not less ye be judged and think this. have u ever read after that though it says for wich measure ye judge ye also shall be judged.

when the whole point of Christianity is to be respectful, humble and tolerant towards everyone.
while this usually holds true it does not always hold true. Jesus was not at all humble when he went into the temples and flipped over tables. there is a time to be humble and a time not to be, a time to be tollerant and a time to stand up.

I have never personally met a Christian who was against homosexuality. I have definitely met gay Christians though. 1 in 10 people are gay (supposedly) so 1 in 10 Christians must also be gay.well we must be from different places because here in east texas alot of people are against it, also if alot of christians were for it we wouldnt have this big debate of gay marriage and gays preaching. and the 1 in 10 thing well i think that is the media trying to fvck with our mind. the reason i say this is in Leakey where i used to live there were no open queers, had there been the people would have kicked them out of the town or killed them sad to say. and here in longview there are a few gays at the school, id say maybe 20 possibly up to 50 but i highly doubt that and there are 75k people in the town.

[Dizzy Man]

Jesus was not at all humble when he went into the temples and flipped over tables. there is a time to be humble and a time not to be, a time to be tollerant and a time to stand up.Hmmm. You've got me thinking. Maybe you're right. I'm sorry I accused you of never having read The Bible. Clearly, I was wrong.

I had never considered Jesus' display of anarchy in the temple to be an example for others to follow, I considered it a one off Jesus thing, like being tortured and killed for our sins. If Jesus was trying to set an example, then it would seem that should not be tolerant of others' ways when their ways are sinful.

However, I still see no reason why homosexuality is sinful. Following the Old Testament rules is impractical and I can't imagine God wanting us to follow all of them. Nobody could possibly avoid touching chairs that menstruating women have sat on, just like any two men who are in love with each other could not possibly deny their feelings. Love is natural. And these rules don't protect anyone. Gay sex doesn't hurt anyone. If God objected to it, surely he would give some kind of explanation?


well we must be from different places because here in east texas alot of people are against it, also if alot of christians were for it we wouldnt have this big debate of gay marriage and gays preaching. and the 1 in 10 thing well i think that is the media trying to fvck with our mind. the reason i say this is in Leakey where i used to live there were no open queers, had there been the people would have kicked them out of the town or killed them sad to say. and here in longview there are a few gays at the school, id say maybe 20 possibly up to 50 but i highly doubt that and there are 75k people in the town.It sounds like we're from two completely different cultures. I live in the UK. In my culture, it's the homophobic and politically incorrect people who are persecuted. Gay people are very accepted on the whole. Obviously, it is hard for any gay person to tell their parents, since their parents will usually be disappointed, and shocked. But the general public don't have a problem with gay people. The only people who don't like gays are the same people who don't like foreigners, and they're just a bunch of brainless idiots who represent (thankfully) a small minority.

Naturally, you and I are not going to understand each other coming from such different cultures. If you have been brought up in a place where people could be killed for being gay, then it is no wonder that you could believe it if you think The Bible tells you homosexuality is a sin. On the other hand, maybe there is something sinful about homosexuality, but I am unable to see it because I've been brought up in a place where it is considered normal.

God must either accept homosexuality, or dislike it. So one of us is right, and the other is wrong! :P