Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

No, it's not just about drawing a line. People may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage).

I honestly can't say much about incestous attraction, but incestual parents are more likely to have recessive genetic traits (several mental handicaps are recessive traits) come to fruition in their child.

Sir Hotbod Handsomeface wrote:

uhhh... ok, No, it is about drawing a line. For one, It has not been proven that homosexuality is a predisposition (and even if it was, that still doesn't justify the behavior... but that a discussion for a whole other thread), and since predisposition, or genetic makeup doesn't justify behavior...

And although you may say, "whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage)", the people who chose this lifestyle might say, "No, I love this person and this person and we want to be a recognized union".

With that all said, it is not very likely that homosexuality is often, if ever, a result of genetic predisposition. It is much more likely to be a result of sexual abuse or serious domestic problems occuring during development years.

Sir Hotbot Handsomeface wrote:

Sexual abuse in development years? On what do you base that? No no - sexual abuse in childhood leads to paedophilia in adulthood, most often. And despite what some ignorant people say, gays are NOT paedophiles (I'm not accusing you of saying that, Sir HH, just generally). One has to do with consenting partners, the other, the rape of children.

# Children often reenact their traumatic experiences through play or drawings
# They may engage in literal representations of certain aspect of the trauma through compulsive and repetitive play that fails to relieve their anxiety
# They are more likely to display generalized fear or anxiety
Children's behavior may regress so they lose previously acquired skills -for example, bed-wetting in a toilet trained child
# Elementary school-aged children may mistake or confuse the sequence of traumatic events ("time-skew") instead of amnesia (memory loss) that adults often experience
# Children often develop a belief in warning signs/omens of future dangers/trauma
# Adolescents may show impulsive or aggressive behavior and reenact their traumatic experience by incorporating aspects of it into their daily lives

But I do agree with the point about homosexuality not being genetic - there's too little consensus about that yet. I read a book by the psychologist James Oliver who says genetics are used too much to explain human characteristics. Homosexuality is one of those - Oliver says that it most often occurs in the youngest boy of several brothers, and where the father is emotionally distant from the boy.

An excellent example of how we can see behavior affected by a gene sequence are certain mental handicaps, such as Down's Syndrome. DS is a result of having trisomy 21, or 3 sets of the 21 chormosome, as opposed to the normal two. Other behavior-affecting diseases, such as Parkinson's, are a result of a certain recessive gene found on a normal chormosome.

GOD!!!! why did we make this thread??? it's pointless All men should have Women wives not MEN/MEN=WRONG MEN/WOMEN=CORRECT.Have you read the bible?Being gay is ANTI-RELIGOUS I want all of the gay people to read Genesis:Chapter 18 and 19 and you will see why im so angry for no reason

Jitka, considering that in the 1960's, African people were getting tortured and killed for no other reason than that they were black and wanted to enjoy the same freedoms as white people, I'd say our 21st century culture's reaction to homosexuality is very mild by comparison. Also, let's not forget Those Really Mean German Guys and their reactions to Jewish people.

True, and look at how we think of those people now. We revile them and their actions. While it's true that not many (with exceptions) gay people have been lynched or tortured for their preferences now, they still do not have equal rights.

There's really not a whole lot of concrete evidence regarding origins of homosexuality (unsurprisingly), but there is a lot of evidence telling us that people are likely to re-enact traumatic events that they experienced as children.

National Center for Victims of Crime wrote:

More here, and here.

Now, if a child were to have a traumatic homosexual experience when they were young and still developing psychologically, that could re-wire their sexual psyche in such a way in that they'd have a desire to re-enact that experience.

This could lead to all sorts of changes in sexual desire, including pedophilia, homosexuality, or any kind of odd fetish-esque desire.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "human characteristics", but I'll assume you mean behavior. In which case...

SHH wrote:

And as a Bible scholar, I can also testify that it does in fact condemn homosexual behavior, so there's no "might" about it.

Now this has always interested me. Because when Christians say that homosexuality is a sin, they usually cite the destruction of Sodom, right?

However..... wasn't the crime of the men of Sodom the wish to commit male rape? I hear that this was actually a common custom in Biblical days - where the men of a community would rape male newcomers as a way to assert their power over them. That's quite a disgusting practice - but it just doesn't apply to committed gay couples who wish to marry, and it doesn't apply to this day and age. Unless there's something more concrete in the Bible......

But while Sodom and Gamorrah may not be the best example to cite concerning homosexual behavior, there are still many places in the Bible that do explicitly state that homosexuality is sinful behavior. For example, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Number one: have you actually done a study of slavery in biblical times? Did you know that more than 3/4 of the Roman world was slave class? Did you also know that the Bible sets extremely strict standards on the way that slaves were to be treated, to the extent that Rabbi Maimonides once wrote, "He who buys a slave buys himself a master." I actually have a 12-page research paper on this topic.

And, no, Afghanistan and the Taliban are NOT doing what Moses and his successors prescribed. In fact, the Old Testament gave women rights and privileges that the ancient world did not afford women. The Bible has never condoned the kind of brutal treatment of women witnessed in Afghanistan. Actually study what the Old Testament says about the treatment of women before making that assumption.

It is interesting to note that the Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and others, repudiate the practice of homosexuality.

I still don't think you're on the right track with that trauma theory. I know someone who's worked with victims of childhood abuse for twenty years, and the experiences of the people she's counselled just don't apply to the majority of gay people. The victims of abuse see the development they underwent after as negative - most gay people see their sexuality as something positive, with the wider homophobia as the only drawback.

I've already mentioned James Oliver - his findings are based on extensive studies of gay men. And he certainly found that homosexuality begins with childhood experience, but they're not nearly as traumatic as you suggest.

This could lead to all sorts of changes in sexual desire, including pedophilia, homosexuality, or any kind of odd fetish-esque desire.

You're getting a bit confused with your terminology, imo. Paedophilia and homosexuality aren't fetishes. And, again, paedophilia and homosexuality can't be compared in the same context - there's still the issue of consent.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "human characteristics", but I'll assume you mean behavior. In which case...

SHH wrote:

Yeah, I meant characteristics - as in, all those things that makes you you, as opposed to behaviour, which is the outcome of those characteristics.

And there's still no scientific evidence of genetics being a factor, and most scientists dismiss the idea. (Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your argument before.) Anyhow, Down's Syndrome is caused by a cromosome defect, and both Downs and Parkinsons are visibly degenerative. So you can't compare them with homosexuality.

I think there may be a false implication/inferration of what I meant by the word "trauma". I was referring to any kind of very memorable/dramatic event that would shape a person psychologically. Also, a person who would re-enact a traumatic event would not necessairly view the event or it's re-enactment with a negative connotation, in fact, the quenching of the desire to re-enact that event would be satisfying.

I think we can, in that, our body and its behavior ARE influenced by our genes. If behavior is a results of characteristics, and characteristics are a results of genes, are not genes at least partially responsible for behavior? If someone is genetically predisposed to produce massive amounts of testosterone, that person is much more likely to act relatively agressive. There may be genetic factors that determine sexual preference aside from the sex chromosome itself (although, as I think we agree, it's not very likely), and there are certainly genetic factors that influence sexuality.

To me, if Scripture says that such practices are not acceptible, then they are not acceptible.

Why abandon those commands? Because according to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), those regulations are not binding on Gentile Christians. Why? Because they are not obligated under the Old Covenant.

However, the Council did set restrictions that are binding upon Gentile Christians, and among them there is one that states that we are to abstain from sexual misconduct, which would include homosexuality.

92tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.”

But in the case of Acts 15, it was clearly the work of the Holy Spirit that informed the Church as to how to respond to the concerns of Gentile Christians, whereas today, I am not convinced that changes in the culture demonstrate his involvement or approval.

The Church has always stood as a challenge to the thinking of contemporary cultures, for example when it stood firm against the idolotry of the Roman Empire and suffered alienation, financial hardship, even torture and death as a result.

For the Church to renounce that role and to embrace unquestioningly the changes in cultural climate is to fail in our divinely given responsibility to call this lost and dying world to repentance and faith. So, no, I am not convinced that changes in culture warrant changes in our theology or morality.

Only the Holy Spirit himself can guide such changes, and I do not see him doing that at this time.

You and I are approaching this subject from two different angles: you seem to believe that modern culture should change the way the Church thinks. On the other hand, I believe the opposite: that the Church should be about the business of changing the way our modern culture thinks.

As long as God's Word is still God's Word, I will continue to adhere to its message and proclaim it. On the other hand, if it is not God's Word, then I am wasting my time and might as well quit my job.

Ahh, but the fact remains that it didn’t actually name homosexuality.

If this is the case, then the issue of consent is the key to what constitutes sexual morality, according to the Council. They're talking about rape, child abuse, adultery. Very clearly, this doesn't apply to loving mutually-respecting couples - of any orientation.

What’s to say that it doesn’t, though? Take the recent debates in the Church of England about allowing gay priests to be elected to bishop.

I truly believe that homosexuality is one of the least important issues raised in the Bible.

Therefore, I can’t see that accepting homosexuality can harm those key values that Christ preached.

But focusing on the defunct unimportant laws and rules... I’m not so sure. You’ll need to convince me that homosexuality actually harms those key values.

Author:	Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
No, it's not just about drawing a line. People may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage). I honestly can't say much about incestous attraction, but incestual parents are more likely to have recessive genetic traits (several mental handicaps are recessive traits) come to fruition in their child.

Author:	seamusz [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:
Sir Hotbod Handsomeface wrote: No, it's not just about drawing a line. People may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage). I honestly can't say much about incestous attraction, but incestual parents are more likely to have recessive genetic traits (several mental handicaps are recessive traits) come to fruition in their child. uhhh... ok, No, it is about drawing a line. For one, It has not been proven that homosexuality is a predisposition (and even if it was, that still doesn't justify the behavior... but that a discussion for a whole other thread), and since predisposition, or genetic makeup doesn't justify behavior, it comes down to where we say "you're lifestyle choice will be recognized, and yours will not be recognized” either way, there will be people fighting for both sides. And although you may say, "whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage)", the people who chose this lifestyle might say, "No, I love this person and this person and we want to be a recognized union". And it is true about genetic dangers of incest relationships, that is unless we are talking same sex attrition, in which case there would be no dangers involved because there would be no potential offspring.

Author:	Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:
seamusz wrote: Sir Hotbod Handsomeface wrote: No, it's not just about drawing a line. People may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage). I honestly can't say much about incestous attraction, but incestual parents are more likely to have recessive genetic traits (several mental handicaps are recessive traits) come to fruition in their child. uhhh... ok, No, it is about drawing a line. For one, It has not been proven that homosexuality is a predisposition (and even if it was, that still doesn't justify the behavior... but that a discussion for a whole other thread), and since predisposition, or genetic makeup doesn't justify behavior... The difficulty in this situation is that it's nearly impossible to have any behavior justified through a gene sequence. All DNA does is code for amino acids that form into proteins that are used to create the organism. An excellent example of how we can see behavior affected by a gene sequence are certain mental handicaps, such as Down's Syndrome. DS is a result of having trisomy 21, or 3 sets of the 21 chormosome, as opposed to the normal two. Other behavior-affecting diseases, such as Parkinson's, are a result of a certain recessive gene found on a normal chormosome. With that all said, it is not very likely that homosexuality is often, if ever, a result of genetic predisposition. It is much more likely to be a result of sexual abuse or serious domestic problems occuring during development years. The point here is that it very well could be, and we cannot write off with absolution that homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" if there is genetic predispostion. We don't know. ALSO! seamusz wrote: And although you may say, "whereas polygamy/bigamy are just collary functions of a sociological concept (marriage)", the people who chose this lifestyle might say, "No, I love this person and this person and we want to be a recognized union". That's fine. I don't think those two ideas contradict, unless I'm missing something. Those who want to share a completely monogamous relationship can do so, AND polygamy/bigamy still has to do with that concept of being a recognized union, even if it involves more than 2 persons.

Author:	Kiki [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:01 am ]
Post subject:
Here in Holland it is totally normal if two people of te same sex are married. Holland was the first country where it was allowed. I think that if two people love eachother, and they want to marry, that's the thing they should do. I can't really think of negative sides. (and I hope my grammar is okay)

Author:	What's Her Face [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:46 am ]
Post subject:
Sir Hotbot Handsomeface wrote: With that all said, it is not very likely that homosexuality is often, if ever, a result of genetic predisposition. It is much more likely to be a result of sexual abuse or serious domestic problems occuring during development years. Sexual abuse in development years? On what do you base that? No no - sexual abuse in childhood leads to paedophilia in adulthood, most often. And despite what some ignorant people say, gays are NOT paedophiles (I'm not accusing you of saying that, Sir HH, just generally). One has to do with consenting partners, the other, the rape of children. But I do agree with the point about homosexuality not being genetic - there's too little consensus about that yet. I read a book by the psychologist James Oliver who says genetics are used too much to explain human characteristics. Homosexuality is one of those - Oliver says that it most often occurs in the youngest boy of several brothers, and where the father is emotionally distant from the boy. But who knows where the genetics may come into it. Because homosexuality is actually a natural thing - as in, found in nature. Yep, it's been seen in certain animals and birds. I read a very cute and funny story in the paper about a year ago. It was about a male gay penguin couple in a New York zoo. No joking. And this couple pretty much acted like a human gay couple - lived together, waddled around their pen together... other things. And one day, this little couple decided that they wanted to have a baby! Yeah - their carers found them trying to hatch a pebble! awwww.... the cuteness.... So, the people looking after them gave them an egg from another batch. They hatched it, and raised the chick - the zookeepers said they did a good job of it, too. So there goes the argument some people throw around that homosexuality - and gay adoption - isn't "natural". What's good enough for penguins is good enough for Mankind, I say.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647	Page 17 of 23

Author:	Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:
What's her face wrote: Sir Hotbot Handsomeface wrote: With that all said, it is not very likely that homosexuality is often, if ever, a result of genetic predisposition. It is much more likely to be a result of sexual abuse or serious domestic problems occuring during development years. Sexual abuse in development years? On what do you base that? No no - sexual abuse in childhood leads to paedophilia in adulthood, most often. And despite what some ignorant people say, gays are NOT paedophiles (I'm not accusing you of saying that, Sir HH, just generally). One has to do with consenting partners, the other, the rape of children. Yeah...thanks. There's really not a whole lot of concrete evidence regarding origins of homosexuality (unsurprisingly), but there is a lot of evidence telling us that people are likely to re-enact traumatic events that they experienced as children. National Center for Victims of Crime wrote: # Children often reenact their traumatic experiences through play or drawings # They may engage in literal representations of certain aspect of the trauma through compulsive and repetitive play that fails to relieve their anxiety # They are more likely to display generalized fear or anxiety Children's behavior may regress so they lose previously acquired skills -for example, bed-wetting in a toilet trained child # Elementary school-aged children may mistake or confuse the sequence of traumatic events ("time-skew") instead of amnesia (memory loss) that adults often experience # Children often develop a belief in warning signs/omens of future dangers/trauma # Adolescents may show impulsive or aggressive behavior and reenact their traumatic experience by incorporating aspects of it into their daily lives More here, and here. Now, if a child were to have a traumatic homosexual experience when they were young and still developing psychologically, that could re-wire their sexual psyche in such a way in that they'd have a desire to re-enact that experience. This could lead to all sorts of changes in sexual desire, including pedophilia, homosexuality, or any kind of odd fetish-esque desire. WHF wrote: But I do agree with the point about homosexuality not being genetic - there's too little consensus about that yet. I read a book by the psychologist James Oliver who says genetics are used too much to explain human characteristics. Homosexuality is one of those - Oliver says that it most often occurs in the youngest boy of several brothers, and where the father is emotionally distant from the boy. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "human characteristics", but I'll assume you mean behavior. In which case... SHH wrote: An excellent example of how we can see behavior affected by a gene sequence are certain mental handicaps, such as Down's Syndrome. DS is a result of having trisomy 21, or 3 sets of the 21 chormosome, as opposed to the normal two. Other behavior-affecting diseases, such as Parkinson's, are a result of a certain recessive gene found on a normal chormosome. Sexual orientation and sexual behavior ARE influenced by genetics, but whether or not it is a deciding factor is debatable. WHF wrote: Gay Penguins Story Right, homosexuality does occur in nature. The origins of homosexuality in animals are about as well known as they are in humans. (sorry about taking out the story, it's already a super-long post.)

Author:	Frotzer [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:35 pm ]
Post subject:
GOD!!!! why did we make this thread??? it's pointless All men should have Women wives not MEN/MEN=WRONG MEN/WOMEN=CORRECT.Have you read the bible?Being gay is ANTI-RELIGOUS I want all of the gay people to read Genesis:Chapter 18 and 19 and you will see why im so angry for no reason

Author:	Smorky [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:
frotzer wrote: GOD!!!! why did we make this thread??? it's pointless All men should have Women wives not MEN/MEN=WRONG MEN/WOMEN=CORRECT.Have you read the bible?Being gay is ANTI-RELIGOUS I want all of the gay people to read Genesis:Chapter 18 and 19 and you will see why im so angry for no reason What about the non-Christian gay people (which I think is most of them)

Author:	Hi Guys [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:59 am ]
Post subject:
Well,I'm a pretty democratic...y guy.I really don't see it as a problem.

Author:	Jitka [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:48 am ]
Post subject:
I have absolutely no problem with gay people getting married if they want to, and I really am surprised that in this day and age there are people who think that not only should homosexual people not be allowed to get married, but that they are actually evil and sinful. It boggles my mind. I hate to think of the way this time period will be looked upon by people in fifty years. They won't be able to believe it. The thing I absolutely hate the most is when people try to bring religion into it. Great, so the Bible vaguely mentions something that might be homosexuality and might say that it is evil (though it's open for interpretation). Believe it if you want. But we CANNOT allow a Constitutional amendment to be passed because of your personal religious beliefs. That's not how America is supposed to work. And aren't there more important things to be focusing on at the moment, like the war in Iraq? Isn't that issue a tiny bit bigger?

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:55 am ]
Post subject:
Jitka, considering that in the 1960's, African people were getting tortured and killed for no other reason than that they were black and wanted to enjoy the same freedoms as white people, I'd say our 21st century culture's reaction to homosexuality is very mild by comparison. Also, let's not forget Those Really Mean German Guys and their reactions to Jewish people. Furthermore, I happen to be one of those that consider homosexuality to be sinful behavior. And as a Bible scholar, I can also testify that it does in fact condemn homosexual behavior, so there's no "might" about it.

Author:	Jitka [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:00 am ]
Post subject:
Like I said, you can believe what you want, but we should not make laws, especially amendments to the Constitution, in the United States based on personal religious beliefs. It just shouldn't happen. Didymus wrote: Jitka, considering that in the 1960's, African people were getting tortured and killed for no other reason than that they were black and wanted to enjoy the same freedoms as white people, I'd say our 21st century culture's reaction to homosexuality is very mild by comparison. Also, let's not forget Those Really Mean German Guys and their reactions to Jewish people. True, and look at how we think of those people now. We revile them and their actions. While it's true that not many (with exceptions) gay people have been lynched or tortured for their preferences now, they still do not have equal rights.

Author:	Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:05 am ]
Post subject:
JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: True, and look at how we think of those people now. We revile them and their actions. While it's true that not many (with exceptions) gay people have been lynched or tortured for their preferences now, they still do not have equal rights. Are you just referring to the right to get married, or something else?

Author:	Jitka [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:08 am ]
Post subject:
In terms of equal rights, I basically mean just the right to get married. However, gay people have not really been fully accepted by society yet, and I believe that they should be, because they are a growing minority.

Page 17 of 23	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	What's Her Face [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:59 am ]
Post subject:
Sir Hotbod Handsomeface wrote: There's really not a whole lot of concrete evidence regarding origins of homosexuality (unsurprisingly), but there is a lot of evidence telling us that people are likely to re-enact traumatic events that they experienced as children. National Center for Victims of Crime wrote: # Children often reenact their traumatic experiences through play or drawings # They may engage in literal representations of certain aspect of the trauma through compulsive and repetitive play that fails to relieve their anxiety # They are more likely to display generalized fear or anxiety Children's behavior may regress so they lose previously acquired skills -for example, bed-wetting in a toilet trained child # Elementary school-aged children may mistake or confuse the sequence of traumatic events ("time-skew") instead of amnesia (memory loss) that adults often experience # Children often develop a belief in warning signs/omens of future dangers/trauma # Adolescents may show impulsive or aggressive behavior and reenact their traumatic experience by incorporating aspects of it into their daily lives More here, and here. Now, if a child were to have a traumatic homosexual experience when they were young and still developing psychologically, that could re-wire their sexual psyche in such a way in that they'd have a desire to re-enact that experience. I still don't think you're on the right track with that trauma theory. I know someone who's worked with victims of childhood abuse for twenty years, and the experiences of the people she's counselled just don't apply to the majority of gay people. The victims of abuse see the development they underwent after as negative - most gay people see their sexuality as something positive, with the wider homophobia as the only drawback. I've already mentioned James Oliver - his findings are based on extensive studies of gay men. And he certainly found that homosexuality begins with childhood experience, but they're not nearly as traumatic as you suggest. Quote: This could lead to all sorts of changes in sexual desire, including pedophilia, homosexuality, or any kind of odd fetish-esque desire. You're getting a bit confused with your terminology, imo. Paedophilia and homosexuality aren't fetishes. And, again, paedophilia and homosexuality can't be compared in the same context - there's still the issue of consent. Quote: I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "human characteristics", but I'll assume you mean behavior. In which case... SHH wrote: An excellent example of how we can see behavior affected by a gene sequence are certain mental handicaps, such as Down's Syndrome. DS is a result of having trisomy 21, or 3 sets of the 21 chormosome, as opposed to the normal two. Other behavior-affecting diseases, such as Parkinson's, are a result of a certain recessive gene found on a normal chormosome. Yeah, I meant characteristics - as in, all those things that makes you you, as opposed to behaviour, which is the outcome of those characteristics. And there's still no scientific evidence of genetics being a factor, and most scientists dismiss the idea. (Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your argument before.) Anyhow, Down's Syndrome is caused by a cromosome defect, and both Downs and Parkinsons are visibly degenerative. So you can't compare them with homosexuality. Didymus wrote: And as a Bible scholar, I can also testify that it does in fact condemn homosexual behavior, so there's no "might" about it. Now this has always interested me. Because when Christians say that homosexuality is a sin, they usually cite the destruction of Sodom, right? However..... wasn't the crime of the men of Sodom the wish to commit male rape? I hear that this was actually a common custom in Biblical days - where the men of a community would rape male newcomers as a way to assert their power over them. That's quite a disgusting practice - but it just doesn't apply to committed gay couples who wish to marry, and it doesn't apply to this day and age. Unless there's something more concrete in the Bible......

Author:	Evin290 [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:
frotzer wrote: GOD!!!! why did we make this thread??? it's pointless All men should have Women wives not MEN/MEN=WRONG MEN/WOMEN=CORRECT.Have you read the bible?Being gay is ANTI-RELIGOUS I want all of the gay people to read Genesis:Chapter 18 and 19 and you will see why im so angry for no reason Frotzer, you know what an opinion is, right? You know what a fact is? You know the difference, don't you? You also know that everything you said was an incorrect (grammatically speaking) opinion. Having extra punctuation marks doesn't make your opinion any more valid. Besides, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't back up your opinion? If you want to make people understand your stance on an issue, do it intelligently if you want it taken seriously. And don't think I'm only saying this because of which opinion you have. Believe me, if somebody wrote "JEEEEEZ! Evrybody is sooooo stupid!!!!!!1! Have you red the constitutution???? Gai marrige is protectd by the writes of evrybody!!!!" then I'd say the exact same thing.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Now this has always interested me. Because when Christians say that homosexuality is a sin, they usually cite the destruction of Sodom, right? However..... wasn't the crime of the men of Sodom the wish to commit male rape? I hear that this was actually a common custom in Biblical days - where the men of a community would rape male newcomers as a way to assert their power over them. That's quite a disgusting practice - but it just doesn't apply to committed gay couples who wish to marry, and it doesn't apply to this day and age. Unless there's something more concrete in the Bible...... You are partially correct. Sodom is typically cited as a gross example of homosexual behavior. And, if you think about it, their behavior in many ways is reflected in current prison systems. However, the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah is actually based on one thing: their hatred of God, of which their deviant and violent behavior was a gross overt symptom. But while Sodom and Gamorrah may not be the best example to cite concerning homosexual behavior, there are still many places in the Bible that do explicitly state that homosexuality is sinful behavior. For example, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Author:	What's Her Face [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: But while Sodom and Gamorrah may not be the best example to cite concerning homosexual behavior, there are still many places in the Bible that do explicitly state that homosexuality is sinful behavior. For example, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Yeah, one can interpret these as commandments against homosexuality. But I've found some alternative interpretations of those verses you've cited (though you've probably seen these already). Leviticus 18:22 (The prevaling argument here is that there are translation difficulties with the verse, and that it's unclear as to what kind of transgression it says homosexuality is.) Leviticus 20:13 (An argument here put forward by Rev Jill Nelson is that to have sex with a man as with a woman is an insult to that man. Because in the Biblical society, women were seen as inferior to men. So it's to do more with sexism than concern about homosexual behaviour.) Romans 1:24-7 (An argument here is that it was in fact God who changed the behaviour of the people in the passage from Verse 21, so that they began having sex with members of the same sex. It was because He disapproved of the heterosexual but pagan fertility rites they were performing.) 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Arguments here includes translation difficulties and the exact meaning of the words "effeminate" and "those who abuse themselves with mankind" - because the latter can refer to catamitery, pederastry, prostitution and hebephilia, not necessarily consenting adults in committed relationships. It's worth remembering that people in Biblical times would have had a different attitude regarding sexual relationships than we have today.) There are more interpretations of other verses here.

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:
I've heard these alternate interpretations. I just don't buy them. Specifically because of the 1 Cor text. The term there translated as "effeminate" is αρσενοκοιται, literally, "men who have sex with other men." (It helps to know a little Greek).

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Number one: have you actually done a study of slavery in biblical times? Did you know that more than 3/4 of the Roman world was slave class? Did you also know that the Bible sets extremely strict standards on the way that slaves were to be treated, to the extent that Rabbi Maimonides once wrote, "He who buys a slave buys himself a master." I actually have a 12-page research paper on this topic. And, no, Afghanistan and the Taliban are NOT doing what Moses and his successors prescribed. In fact, the Old Testament gave women rights and privileges that the ancient world did not afford women. The Bible has never condoned the kind of brutal treatment of women witnessed in Afghanistan. Actually study what the Old Testament says about the treatment of women before making that assumption. The quote makes assumptions about the meanings of terms based on an assumption that the third term is the only acceptable one to describe the behavior in question. It would be like me saying, "When he says pop, he can't possibly be talking about soda." No, here, the best authority would be a good Greek-English lexicon, like Bauer-Danker, and according to Bauer-Danker, the term αρσενοκοιται does mean "men who have sex with other men." It is interesting to note that the Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and others, repudiate the practice of homosexuality.

Author:	What's Her Face [ Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:
I fear I'll offend you something horrible if I carry on much more! But what I'm arguing for is an interpretation of the Bible that best suits this time we live in. Not for our convenience, but so that we can relate to it. And some of the Old Testaments laws don't apply to us, and it's never a bad idea to consider the New Testament with a critical eye too, as I'll argue. I don't pretend to know nearly as much as you, and I don't ask you to agree. I'll just ask you whether you think these arguments have any validity at all. Didymus wrote: Number one: have you actually done a study of slavery in biblical times? Did you know that more than 3/4 of the Roman world was slave class? Did you also know that the Bible sets extremely strict standards on the way that slaves were to be treated, to the extent that Rabbi Maimonides once wrote, "He who buys a slave buys himself a master." I actually have a 12-page research paper on this topic. I’ve read the first five books, some years ago admittedly, and I know that there are commandments against enslaving debtors and foreigners unjustly, the provision that Hebrew slaves are to be released after certain amount of years, and some others. And I’ve had a thoroughly classical education, and know about slavery in Roman society too. That’s fine, I’m not questioning the human rights of this issue. Human rights as we know them didn’t exist in their time. And, conversely, the rules concerning slavery in Leviticus are not applicable to us, because most of us see slavery – whether humane or otherwise – as being morally wrong. So, is it worth considering that there are other Old Testament rules that don’t apply to our society? Even the Pauline documents – shouldn’t we be careful in how we interpret those too? Take Romans and Corinthians. To whom are these epistles actually addressed – the Romans and the Corinthians of Paul’s time. Of course, there may be wisdom in these epistles applicable to our own society, but he is very specifically talking to the Romans and Corinthians about the ills of their societies in particular. For example: Corinthians 6:9. The Greeks of this time still had the very common practice of catamitery and pedastry, as you’ll know. So the homosexuality there was man-boy, not man-man, or woman-woman. So couldn’t Paul have been talking about these particular practices, and not the adult mutually-respecting gay relationships that we know today? Another: Romans 1:21-27. Couldn’t this have just been a warning against the pagan rituals of the Romans? Scholors have argued (in the link above) that it is possible that God was angered that the people turned to pagan fertility rites, and changed their sexuality so as their sexual endevours would be fruitless. You already said you don’t buy that, and I’m not out to change your mind. But the epistles to the Romans are intended for a first-century Roman audience, not for us (at least, not directly). Quote: And, no, Afghanistan and the Taliban are NOT doing what Moses and his successors prescribed. In fact, the Old Testament gave women rights and privileges that the ancient world did not afford women. The Bible has never condoned the kind of brutal treatment of women witnessed in Afghanistan. Actually study what the Old Testament says about the treatment of women before making that assumption. The Taliban governance was based on Sharia Law, which is based on the Koran, which is based on the Torah (Tawrah in Arabic) as received by Moses. Everyone knows the negative aspects of Sharia Law, but it’s more complex than just the oppression of women and public stonings. In fact, there’s a Koranic chapter dedicated to the rights of women, as they were in Mohammad’s day (Surat Al-Nisa). Both the laws outlined in the Torah and Sharia begin with the same principal – that civil life shouldn't be separated from religious life – and goes from there. And neither are solely concerned with doling out punishment – they’re designed for everything from economics to personal hygiene. Though the West focuses on the horrific punishments and oppression in Sharia societies, for obvious reasons. Some laws that Sharia owes to the Torah are as follows. The outcome depends on how literal your interpretation is. The practice of not putting interest on loans. (Exo. 22:25) The rule that you may only marry believers. (Sura 2:221, 60:10; Lev 18:25-29) Dietary laws (Sura 5:5; Lev. 22, 11:3-8, 17:12) Adherence to the Ten Commandments (Sura 6:151-153; Exo. 20:1-23, Deut. 5:6-18) Apostasy as treason. (Lev. 20:3-5) The practice of circumcision. (Sura 11:69-78; Gen 17:11) Provision of death by stoning for adultery. (Hadith 17:42:07; Lev. 20:10-14) The rule that a man must not cut his beard. (Lev. 19:32) The reason I brought up Talibani Afghanistan at all is that that is an example of a very literal reading of Biblical texts that doesn’t suit the time in which it was set. Afghanistan was always a very devout country, but after the wars against the Soviet Union and before the Taliban, it was slowly recovering economically and progressing forward. Then came the Taliban, who brought their very literal interpretations and punishments, and the country regressed until they were worse off than before the Soviet conflicts. I believe the same would go for Western countries. But consciously or unconsciously, we’ve abandoned a lot of that Old Testament baggage. One possible reason is racial – the Mosaic Laws are originally intended only for Hebrews. Another reason, for which Afghanistan is the poster child, is that our society would most likely collapse if we didn’t revise the religious rules for a modern era. So who’s to decide what rules stay and what rules go? I argue that we should ask ourselves is how important is it, how applicable it is to our society. Christ didn’t mention homosexuality – should we use that as a benchmark? And we’ve now come to understand what homosexuality is about, which our predecessors didn’t. Quote: It is interesting to note that the Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and others, repudiate the practice of homosexuality. Fine, I take your point that homosexuality is condemned by these men (I’ll have to take your word for it because I don’t know their works). But again, isn’t it worth making a distinction between the social attitudes of their times and ours? There is increased awareness now about how homosexuality isn’t a choice, about how children are being raised perfectly fine in gay households, and about how it’s even found in the animal kingdom. They didn’t have this to influence their thought, as homosexuality was not recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation until the last century, and was associated with other failings in character and morals. Of course, many still feel that way (as is their right), but society is still moving towards a more informed outlook on the subject. But your other point about over-interpretation is taken too.

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:
I am still not convinced that shifting attitudes regarding human sexuality are necessarily right, though. My own thought is that, since Scripture does not accept it as a legitimate form of human sexuality, then neither should we. I have no doubt that we should take into consideration the historical contexts of the scriptural writings. And, yes, there were widespread abominable practices common to the regions to which these epistles were addressed. Nevertheless, the overall theme of Scripture concerning human sexuality is that of a chaste and decent lifestyle, exemplified by marital fidelity between a husband and wife. For this reason, I am not convinced that narrower interpretations of the terms relating to homosexuality necessarily apply. In other words, even if the common practice of homosexuality in those regions was essentially pedastry, it still does not mean that practices of adult homosexuality are excluded from the condemnation. In short, I am not convinced that modern attitudes regarding homosexuality are the right ones. Nor am I convinced that new attempts to reinterpret passages regarding homosexuality are correct in what they are attempting to do, which is to present practices that are condemned in Scripture as being completely acceptible. To me, if Scripture says that such practices are not acceptible, then they are not acceptible.

Author:	Sir Hotbod Handsomeface [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:06 am ]
Post subject:
What's her face wrote: I still don't think you're on the right track with that trauma theory. I know someone who's worked with victims of childhood abuse for twenty years, and the experiences of the people she's counselled just don't apply to the majority of gay people. The victims of abuse see the development they underwent after as negative - most gay people see their sexuality as something positive, with the wider homophobia as the only drawback. I've already mentioned James Oliver - his findings are based on extensive studies of gay men. And he certainly found that homosexuality begins with childhood experience, but they're not nearly as traumatic as you suggest. I think there may be a false implication/inferration of what I meant by the word "trauma". I was referring to any kind of very memorable/dramatic event that would shape a person psychologically. Also, a person who would re-enact a traumatic event would not necessairly view the event or it's re-enactment with a negative connotation, in fact, the quenching of the desire to re-enact that event would be satisfying. Quote: This could lead to all sorts of changes in sexual desire, including pedophilia, homosexuality, or any kind of odd fetish-esque desire. WHF wrote: You're getting a bit confused with your terminology, imo. Paedophilia and homosexuality aren't fetishes. And, again, paedophilia and homosexuality can't be compared in the same context - there's still the issue of consent. I meant to present those three terms as completely separate ideas. Pedophilia OR homosexuality OR odd fetishes OR something unrelated, etc. Quote: I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "human characteristics", but I'll assume you mean behavior. In which case... SHH wrote: An excellent example of how we can see behavior affected by a gene sequence are certain mental handicaps, such as Down's Syndrome. DS is a result of having trisomy 21, or 3 sets of the 21 chormosome, as opposed to the normal two. Other behavior-affecting diseases, such as Parkinson's, are a result of a certain recessive gene found on a normal chormosome. WHF wrote: Yeah, I meant characteristics - as in, all those things that makes you you, as opposed to behaviour, which is the outcome of those characteristics. And there's still no scientific evidence of genetics being a factor, and most scientists dismiss the idea. (Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your argument before.) Anyhow, Down's Syndrome is caused by a cromosome defect, and both Downs and Parkinsons are visibly degenerative. So you can't compare them with homosexuality. I think we can, in that, our body and its behavior ARE influenced by our genes. If behavior is a results of characteristics, and characteristics are a results of genes, are not genes at least partially responsible for behavior? If someone is genetically predisposed to produce massive amounts of testosterone, that person is much more likely to act relatively agressive. There may be genetic factors that determine sexual preference aside from the sex chromosome itself (although, as I think we agree, it's not very likely), and there are certainly genetic factors that influence sexuality.

Author:	What's Her Face [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Sir Hotbod Handsomeface wrote: I think there may be a false implication/inferration of what I meant by the word "trauma". I was referring to any kind of very memorable/dramatic event that would shape a person psychologically. Also, a person who would re-enact a traumatic event would not necessairly view the event or it's re-enactment with a negative connotation, in fact, the quenching of the desire to re-enact that event would be satisfying. There may be truth to that in some cases. It'll depend on whether any psychologists have made case notes along these lines - I'm sure that if this was a prominant trigger for homosexuality in later life, they would have noticed it by now. BTW, is this a personal theory or something you've seen somewhere? Quote: I think we can, in that, our body and its behavior ARE influenced by our genes. If behavior is a results of characteristics, and characteristics are a results of genes, are not genes at least partially responsible for behavior? If someone is genetically predisposed to produce massive amounts of testosterone, that person is much more likely to act relatively agressive. There may be genetic factors that determine sexual preference aside from the sex chromosome itself (although, as I think we agree, it's not very likely), and there are certainly genetic factors that influence sexuality. Well, it'll be interesting to see if any positive corrolation is made between behaviour and genetics; from what I've seen it's still early days for that line of research. Antway, I found a chapter in an ebook that may be interest. One arguement there says that humans and animals may share certain evolutionary traits with regard to mating, connected to genetics (which might include homosexuality, though the article doesn't say that). However, another argument says that sexuality is far too varied to be explained this way. So who knows. Didymus wrote: To me, if Scripture says that such practices are not acceptible, then they are not acceptible. There are other practices that the Scriptures forbid, and yet even devout Christians do them. Like shaving (Lev. 19:32), putting interest on loans (Exo. 22:25), not observing Passover (Deut. 16:1-8), eating pork (Deut. 14:8), wearing cloth of mixed wool and linen (Deut. 22:11). And these are commandments from God - and at the end of Deuteronomy there's a very stern warning against breaking any of God's commandments (Deut. 28:15-68). Why abandon these commandments and cling to others that are really not important? My answer as to why we've abandoned them: many of them don't apply to our time or culture, they apply just to the Hebrews of Moses' time. Also, Christ's teaching was founded on the reinvention of tired rules and prejudices, like in His condemning the unjust death-by-stoning penalty, and in His approaching the Samaritan woman at the well.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Why abandon those commands? Because according to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), those regulations are not binding on Gentile Christians. Why? Because they are not obligated under the Old Covenant. However, the Council did set restrictions that are binding upon Gentile Christians, and among them there is one that states that we are to abstain from sexual misconduct, which would include homosexuality. But in the case of Acts 15, it was clearly the work of the Holy Spirit that informed the Church as to how to respond to the concerns of Gentile Christians, whereas today, I am not convinced that changes in the culture demonstrate his involvement or approval. The Church has always stood as a challenge to the thinking of contemporary cultures, for example when it stood firm against the idolotry of the Roman Empire and suffered alienation, financial hardship, even torture and death as a result. For the Church to renounce that role and to embrace unquestioningly the changes in cultural climate is to fail in our divinely given responsibility to call this lost and dying world to repentance and faith. So, no, I am not convinced that changes in culture warrant changes in our theology or morality. Only the Holy Spirit himself can guide such changes, and I do not see him doing that at this time. You and I are approaching this subject from two different angles: you seem to believe that modern culture should change the way the Church thinks. On the other hand, I believe the opposite: that the Church should be about the business of changing the way our modern culture thinks. As long as God's Word is still God's Word, I will continue to adhere to its message and proclaim it. On the other hand, if it is not God's Word, then I am wasting my time and might as well quit my job.

Author:	Trev-MUN [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Wow, heh. I was about to PM Didymus and talk to him about this subject to get his views. D: As he is a Bible scholar, he's one of the guys here know knows the book inside out. I've tried to consult a lot of sources as far as the whole debate on whether or not it's a sin of any type to be homosexual. I'm straight, but I once knew a guy who was gay but deeply religious--and was understandably involved in this debate. First opened my eyes to it. From everything I can understand, the point on which the whole debate hinges is on Leviticus. I need to read that book in detail, however, the major argument I have seen states that the parts that deal with law are not God's word, but the laws Moses and his people wrote to further define order within Jewish society--as opposed to God personally revealing the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. In other words, if God didn't personally tell Moses homosexuality is an abomination before Him, and that was something Moses decided upon as a law for his people, then ... well, you see what this getting at. Leviticus is one of two sources I have seen which actively speak against homosexuality. Paul of Tarsus is the other one, but he seems to base his case off Leviticus, thus why it all hinges on that book. He refers to the laws of Leviticus in several passages when speaking of homosexuality, and the only times I've seen Paul speak of it are in 1 Corinthians and in Romans. When I was reading and researching I never noticed Paul saying it was God or Jesus who personally stated homosexuality directly leads to chewing on brimstone. And for the record, I haven't quite seen where God or Jesus specifically said anything against homosexuality ... unless, of course, Leviticus is seen to be God's word and not Moses expounding on the Ten Commandments. Didymus'll prolly correct me if I've grossly missed something or another. Didymus points out the very issue in referring to the book of Acts of the Apostles. Council of Jerusalem. We are humans deciding how best to act out what God has told us--and I think that's important to remember, especially when we consider some of the most condeming writings about homosexuality appear to come from men, not God. To use Paul's own words against him, "Test everything. Hold onto the good." I'm sure that's what the Council of Jerusalem felt when they discussed the matter. And, something tells me if the Council of Jeruslaem felt that certain laws Leviticus imposed are no longer binding ...

Author:	What's Her Face [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Why abandon those commands? Because according to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), those regulations are not binding on Gentile Christians. Why? Because they are not obligated under the Old Covenant. That is precisely my previous point – Christian teaching tells us that there are some rules that don’t apply to non-Hebrews. Therefore, Christianity is about religious reinvention, imo. Quote: However, the Council did set restrictions that are binding upon Gentile Christians, and among them there is one that states that we are to abstain from sexual misconduct, which would include homosexuality. Ahh, but the fact remains that it didn’t actually name homosexuality. And what exactly constitutes “sexual misconduct”? This question is left open in Acts 15. Perhaps because the Council allows each Christian society will be able to decide for itself what constitutes sexual morality, in its own good conscience? But also, this footnote is attached to Acts 15:29, at Net Bible...... Quote: 92tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.” If this is the case, then the issue of consent is the key to what constitutes sexual morality, according to the Council. They're talking about rape, child abuse, adultery. Very clearly, this doesn't apply to loving mutually-respecting couples - of any orientation. Quote: But in the case of Acts 15, it was clearly the work of the Holy Spirit that informed the Church as to how to respond to the concerns of Gentile Christians, whereas today, I am not convinced that changes in the culture demonstrate his involvement or approval. What’s to say that it doesn’t, though? Take the recent debates in the Church of England about allowing gay priests to be elected to bishop. The fact that they sat to discuss, that Archbishop Rowan Williams is so open to accepting any outcome of these debates, maybe the Holy Spirit has returned and guided the Church to reconsider the issue. Perhaps, at the very least, so that Christianity doesn’t become stagnant and stuck its ways. In the first hurdle, the African and Asian C-of-E churchmen rejected the ordination of gay bishops, because they reject homosexuality in their own cultures. And that’s fine - even if that’s the final outcome, at least the C-of-E will have reconsidered it. Absolutely no harm in that. Quote: The Church has always stood as a challenge to the thinking of contemporary cultures, for example when it stood firm against the idolotry of the Roman Empire and suffered alienation, financial hardship, even torture and death as a result. But the Christian stance against paganism is a different issue. Because if the Christians accepted paganism, that would have changed everything about their religion – the belief in the Cross, the core values of faith and good works and honouring your fellow man. I truly believe that homosexuality is one of the least important issues raised in the Bible. It’s mentioned barely a half-dozen times. And most important, when Christ was asked what are the most important commandments, He didn’t say a thing about it. Therefore, I can’t see that accepting homosexuality can harm those key values that Christ preached. Quote: For the Church to renounce that role and to embrace unquestioningly the changes in cultural climate is to fail in our divinely given responsibility to call this lost and dying world to repentance and faith. So, no, I am not convinced that changes in culture warrant changes in our theology or morality. To call the world “lost and dying” is to give up on it. From where I am sitting, I see a whole lot of Christian potential in this world, but sadly the Church has a habit of driving away followers because it gets stuck on the tiny details. I was one of those driven away – I couldn’t stand the thought of a bunch of octogenarian insular cardinals telling me how to live my spiritual life. I took the initiative, read the Bible on my own, discovered a lot about the Bible on my own. Honestly, I felt alienated from a lot of the Old Testament, but I really saw how Christ speaks for all time, for all faiths, for all perspectives, in all good conscience. Even now that I’m agnostic, I still can say that I believe in Christ’s message. Because He focused on...... THE KEY VALUES THAT BIND US ALL Quote: Only the Holy Spirit himself can guide such changes, and I do not see him doing that at this time. Refer to my reference of the Church of England debates above. There’s that possibility that he is still around. Quote: You and I are approaching this subject from two different angles: you seem to believe that modern culture should change the way the Church thinks. On the other hand, I believe the opposite: that the Church should be about the business of changing the way our modern culture thinks. I don’t believe in changing the rules because we feel like it, don't get me wrong. My argument is that modern culture is going to affect our thinking no matter how much we think it doesn’t. And a process of religious rejuvenation is needed to stop people from rejecting the key values of religion, and to encourage them to see it as a vital part of their lives. I’ve worked on keeping alive dying communities, in Ireland and the UK – so I’ve seen how powerful modern culture really is, and how it can corrode our indigenous cultures if we don't stop it. Likewise, I totally agree with you about the Church needing to stop modern culture from destroying it, too. But you can’t do that with the Don’t Do That Do This approach. You do that by building bridges between it and Christianity. To instil respect, not fear and distain. To offer a viable alternative from secularism, not a butcher's board of dead rules. Take TrevMUN’s friend, the gay Christian. Are you going to tell him that his Christianity is of lesser worth because he’s gay? Because being gay really really really isn’t a choice, and it’s not representative of any moral failings. Even though it’s mentioned in the Bible, the question is: does it conflict with the core Christian values? Quote: As long as God's Word is still God's Word, I will continue to adhere to its message and proclaim it. On the other hand, if it is not God's Word, then I am wasting my time and might as well quit my job. You’re not wasting your time if you promote those key values that, time and time again, God and Christ said were important. The Cross. Faith. The family. The community. Tolerence. Respect. The person’s spiritual bettering. That is God’s Word, imo. But focusing on the defunct unimportant laws and rules... I’m not so sure. You’ll need to convince me that homosexuality actually harms those key values.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Ahh, but the fact remains that it didn’t actually name homosexuality. So you claim, but I have no reason to accept that. In fact, my own study of Scripture indicates otherwise. To define what is meant by "sexual misconduct," all one has to do is study the rest of the New Testament. And, yes, homosexuality is included in this definition, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9. Quote: If this is the case, then the issue of consent is the key to what constitutes sexual morality, according to the Council. They're talking about rape, child abuse, adultery. Very clearly, this doesn't apply to loving mutually-respecting couples - of any orientation. That is, assuming that the addition is a valid interpretation of the overall meaning of the text (i.e., that sexual misconduct is primarily defined in terms of consent). I’m not convinced that the alternate reading makes that a clear connection, nor am I convinced that the alternate reading is the valid one. But if it is, then the command allows for all sorts of immoral behavior that is clearly condemned elsewhere. Quote: What’s to say that it doesn’t, though? Take the recent debates in the Church of England about allowing gay priests to be elected to bishop. The fact that what they are doing clearly contradicts the teachings of Scripture. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would contradict himself that way, prohibiting certain behaviors to Christians in one century then allowing them the next. I am convinced that the Church of England is, in fact, now actually going against the Holy Spirit in what it is doing. The ruling of the Council of Jerusalem was concerning whether people not bound by the Old Covenant to start with should be expected to uphold the Old Covenant dietary and legal obligations. And how do we know that the Holy Spirit was at work in this way? Acts 10, the Baptism of Cornelius, a Roman Soldier to whom a miraculous sign was given. But sexual misconduct as defined by the rest of the New Testament makes it clear that homosexuality is not acceptable Christian behavior. To simply say that the Holy Spirit is going to change his mind just because modern culture changed its? That’s ludicrous. As I stated in my previous post, the Church has always stood in opposition to the immorality of the surrounding culture. If the Holy Spirit made that much concession to surrounding culture, then why was pagan worship prohibited? Quote: I truly believe that homosexuality is one of the least important issues raised in the Bible. Okay, I’ll grant you this: it’s not THE most important issue raised in the Bible. However, it is still an issue, and one that Christians are not at liberty to simply cast aside. If we are to remain faithful to God’s Word, we are not allowed to simply ignore those parts. Maybe it isn’t the most important issue, but I wouldn’t say it’s the least one, either. I’ll put it to you this way: I do not preach about homosexuality from my pulpit. Why? Because I feel my responsibility as a preacher is to address the needs of my congregation, and homosexuality is not one of the needs of Faith or Good Shepherd at this time. Now, there might come a time when that will change, but right now, I have more immediate concerns. To see an example of what I do preach, just click on Amy below. Quote: Therefore, I can’t see that accepting homosexuality can harm those key values that Christ preached. I can. As I’ve said before, I’ve done extensive research on sexual addictive behaviors and recovery as part of my clinical work. I know that sexual misconduct can and in fact does interfere with a person’s ability to enjoy God’s love. The simple answer is that sinful behavior creates a barrier between the creature and the Creator, but the truth is that the guilt, shame, resentment, and other powerful emotions come into play. Sexual misconduct of any type creates the illusion that love can only be fully enjoyed in the context of sexual union. In short, what is essentially a quest to find love and acceptance becomes a drive to find these things in sexual activity. But I digress. My point is this: that sexual misconduct can raise a barrier between a person and God, one in which a relationship of love becomes extremely difficult to maintain. In short, it becomes its own form of idolatry. Every Man’s Battle, Sexaholics Anonymous, and THIS WEB SITE have excellent information on this subject. Quote: But focusing on the defunct unimportant laws and rules... I’m not so sure. You’ll need to convince me that homosexuality actually harms those key values. See the paragraph above. I am not convinced that God’s rules and laws are entirely defunct, as you describe them. Regardless of whether they are en vogue in our modern culture, they are still His, and since He is the authority, I'd prefer to trust Him than new interpretations and ideologies arising from our modern culture. Let me sum up quickly my reasons for maintaining my position on this topic: 1. It is my understanding from my own study of Scripture and the ancient languages, that God's intended will for human sexuality be that a man and a woman be joined together as one flesh, as husband and wife, for life, and that this relationship be one of self-giving and self-sacrifice on the part of both. 2. That God never intended for men to have sexual relations with other men. 3. That, even though God loves us unconditionally, it is not possible to truly love God when one is engaged in sexual misconduct of any type (which includes pornography, adultery, promiscuity, etc., and also homosexuality). All my research in sexual addiction points this way. 4. That God is the ultimate authority on his own Word; only He can dictate when interpretations and practices of that Word are to be changed. Changes in culture do not hold equal authority in this regard. Neither can the actions of church bodies that do not adhere to that Word.