Christianity and Homosexuality

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The Pauline passages referring to slavery can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul allowed slavery. If the law changes, then the status of slavery changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that slavery per se is good or that the Church finds slavery to be a required social institution.

The homosexual lifestyle choice, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to slavery, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

Nothing that can be explained or understood logically can possibly be a perversion of nature. You know what is unnatural, though? Your god. So, if your god is good, then it must not be bad to be unnatural. That being said, there's no way that homosexuality can be unnatural because it is based upon logically explicable foundations.

[Dyakovo]

Didn't you know that if the catholic church accepts homosexuality then everyone will become a homosexual?

Oh I forgot about that scientifically proven idea. How does gays getting married affect other marriages?

Yes, I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to see your answer to this.

Easy...
If gay marriage is allowed then everyone will want one (remember everyone will become gay if it's accepted)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Easy...
If gay marriage is allowed then everyone will want one (remember everyone will become gay if it's accepted)

Doh! How silly of me.

[Flameswroth]

Didn't you know that if the catholic church accepts homosexuality then everyone will become a homosexual?

Oh I forgot about that scientifically proven idea. How does gays getting married affect other marriages?

Yes, I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to see your answer to this.

The Marriage Omnicomplex

It's a divine, powerful network created by God. When you're married in an approved, holy marriage, your souls are entwined into the nexus of loving power. It gives you a modicum of God's infinite love and, in turn, your own union helps to power that matrix of affection. But in the unholy abomination of gay marriage, your connection to the grid is corrupted. It draws only energy from the grid, it does not help to power it. As gay marriages increase, the available power in sapped by these leeching influences, reducing the grid's ability to help couples feel the love of God in their lives.

If you were to make homosexual unions more commonplace, you add a greater burden to the Marriage Omnicomplex, reducing the love and divine oneness that the truly good couples feel.

I wonder if I can start a religion based on this premise...

[Blouman Empire]

Nothing that can be explained or understood logically can possibly be a perversion of nature. You know what is unnatural, though? Your god. So, if your god is good, then it must not be bad to be unnatural. That being said, there's no way that homosexuality can be unnatural because it is based upon logically explicable foundations.

Apart from your little attack on god, it is stupid to argue about wether homosexuality is unnatural or natural, because quite frankly it matters naught and is a fallacy to push either as an argument for or against.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Apart from your little attack on god, it is stupid to argue about wether homosexuality is unnatural or natural, because quite frankly it matters naught and is a fallacy to push either as an argument for or against.

I wasn't attacking god. The god of Christianity is, by definition, outside of logic and nature, for the essence of this god is self-contradictory. Such a god is unnatural. If such a god is good, then it is clear that unnatural =/= bad.

[Blouman Empire]

Apart from your little attack on god, it is stupid to argue about wether homosexuality is unnatural or natural, because quite frankly it matters naught and is a fallacy to push either as an argument for or against.

I wasn't attacking god. The god of Christianity is, by definition, outside of logic and nature, for the essence of this god is self-contradictory. Such a god is unnatural. If such a god is good, then it is clear that unnatural =/= bad.

Yeah you were and as I say you can't say because something is unnatural or natural whether that makes it good or bad.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yeah you were and as I say you can't say because something is unnatural or natural whether that makes it good or bad.

I fail to see how we disagree.

[New Kereptica]

Apart from your little attack on god, it is stupid to argue about wether homosexuality is unnatural or natural, because quite frankly it matters naught and is a fallacy to push either as an argument for or against.

I wasn't attacking god. The god of Christianity is, by definition, outside of logic and nature, for the essence of this god is self-contradictory. Such a god is unnatural. If such a god is good, then it is clear that unnatural =/= bad.

Yeah you were and as I say you can't say because something is unnatural or natural whether that makes it good or bad.

Pointing out that your god is irrational != an attack thereon.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Bump because I want NM to answer my questions.

[Dyakovo]

Bump because I want NM to answer my questions.

[Blouman Empire]

Yeah you were and as I say you can't say because something is unnatural or natural whether that makes it good or bad.

I fail to see how we disagree.

I don't think we do but I am just pointing out that it is poor form to argue for or against something in regards to if it is natural or not. I do the same to people who argue against SSM.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I take it it's funny because he historically does not answer direct questions? Also:

[Ascon]

Pointing out that your god is irrational != an attack thereon.

Except that it is. Try and see it from the other side. Irrational is a word that always carries some kind of negative connotation (except in math. Say "i" everyone!) so when you apply it to somebody's belief system that's a defacto insult regardless of intent, and you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that your intent isn't to insult in the first place when you choose a word like "irrational" to apply to something as deeply personal as their chosen deity.

[The Alma Mater]

Pointing out that your god is irrational != an attack thereon.

Except that it is. Try and see it from the other side. Irrational is a word that always carries some kind of negative connotation (except in math. Say "i" everyone!) so when you apply it to somebody's belief system that's a defacto insult regardless of intent, and you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that your intent isn't to insult in the first place when you choose a word like "irrational" to apply to something as deeply personal as their chosen deity.

Can you suggest an alternative word that fits ?

[Ascon]

Can you suggest an alternative word that fits ?

Maybe an alternative phrasing. The point isn't so much to sugar coat it, but to make it clear that attack isn't the intent. For instance, I'm not a Hindu. I regard the idea of having a literal manifestation of a deity in a shrine in someone's home to be outside of what I understand to be useful religion. You could call it irrational, I suppose, but here's the thing: Hindu people are quite well aware of how their beliefs are seen by those of monotheistic faiths. They don't need to be told that, any more than a Christian has some sort of deficit in their knowledge that you're fixing by telling them their God is, in your view, irrational.

So if you find yourself in a position where you absolutely must point this out, for whatever reason, then would it be so hard to say "Well you probably already know I find the idea of god irrational?" After all, that started when someone suggested that the Christian God is self-contradictory. Christians certainly don't see it that way, so you're not going to build any bridges by suggesting that somehow God being irrational is an agreed upon premise. If anything, a person making such a claim would be regarded by Christians a someone who's betrayed a deficit in their own understanding of what God is.

To phrase the statement to make it sound more like an opinion is not only more reasonable but it gives both sides room to breathe.

[The Zodi Identity]

The concept of unnatural is quit insentient.

Black holes are natural. Volcanoes are natural. Earthworms are natural.

All exist within our physical observable universe.

Homosexual animals exist in our physical observable universe. These are animals ruled by instinct.

Thus homosexuality is entirely natural.

Abasing ourselves before a structure dedicated to an unobservable entity (God in its many facets) does not occur in nature or any other field outside of human interaction.

(In character)
Thus religion in general must be deemed to be 'unnatural' by those sentient individuals of The Zodi Identity.

The marginals believe in the most insane folktales. Ignore the marginals.

[Ascon]

The concept of unnatural is quit insentient.

Black holes are natural. Volcanoes are natural. Earthworms are natural.

All exist within our physical observable universe.

Homosexual animals exist in our physical observable universe. These are animals ruled by instinct.

Thus homosexuality is entirely natural.

I think you're making a leap here, as you seem to be suggesting that *any* activity engaged in by animals is necessarily natural for human beings. This line of reasoning only works if you're also willing to call incest, murder, infanticide, war, etc. natural for humans as well.

Abasing ourselves before a structure dedicated to an unobservable entity (God in its many facets) does not occur in nature or any other field outside of human interaction.

This, again, assumes that what's natural for animals is necessarily what's natural for humans AND vice versa. You seem to be following the idea that as long as at least two species engage in a given activity, it is therefore normal. (Ex:Humans building dams is natural because beavers also build dams, but humans building spacecraft is not because no animal species is known to do so.) This makes me wonder: This being the case, would it be unnatural for humans to build dams if, for whatever reason, beavers became extinct? If so then the definition of natural becomes entirely useless and arbitrary.

This strikes me as a VERY simplistic approach to the question as well as being quite beside the point when you consider how this relates to Christianity, since one of the tenets of Christian philosophy is that to deny the natural man is to attain spiritual enlightenment. In other words, spiritual purification occurs when the body's urges are controlled and mastered. (This is why Christians fast.)

So even if you were to prove that homosexual behavior is natural among humans, it would be entirely irrelevant to Christian philosophy.

[Kobrania]

And circumcision is natural?

[The Alma Mater]

I think you're making a leap here, as you seem to be suggesting that *any* activity engaged in by animals is necessarily natural for human beings. This line of reasoning only works if you're also willing to call incest, murder, infanticide, war, etc. natural for humans as well.

They are. As are generosity, selfsacrifice, love etc.
Natural does not imply good or bad. It does, of course, imply that God "made it that way" if you are a believer.

This, again, assumes that what's natural for animals is necessarily what's natural for humans AND vice versa. You seem to be following the idea that as long as at least two species engage in a given activity, it is therefore normal

Normal and natural are two different things.
In addition, normal and abnormal again do not imply good or bad. Being a genius is abnormal. Being a millionaire is abnormal.

[The Zodi Identity]

Ascon said:

"So even if you were to prove that homosexual behavior is natural among humans, it would be entirely irrelevant to Christian philosophy."

Correct. Christian and all religious philosophy is ruled by the acceptance of human beings of its relevance.

The question I explored in your quote was the term 'Natural'
An adjective denoting: "Existing or caused by nature. Not caused by man" - Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Thus as an adherent to a religion any person is entitled to believe within their dogma just as I am entitled to believe that dogma did not bring the universe into being.

This is not an attack on religion or a defence of homosexulaity but a containment of the terms used by those that debate on these fora.

[Ascon]

And circumcision is natural?

Relevance, if you please?

They are. As are generosity, selfsacrifice, love etc.
Natural does not imply good or bad. It does, of course, imply that God "made it that way" if you are a believer.

Points awarded for consistency to The Alma Mater.

So my question, then, is why is "naturalness" even relevant, since as a human society we don't use it as a basis for determining right vs. wrong. In other words, if we concede that infanticide is "natural" because we observe animals doing it in the wild, that doens't in any way make it more acceptible to kill a baby in human culture. That being the case, why would a Christian care about whether homosexuality was natural or not?

Normal and natural are two different things.
In addition, normal and abnormal again do not imply good or bad. Being a genius is abnormal. Being a millionaire is abnormal.

I meant to say "natural" at the end there. It wasn't my intent to bring "normal" into the discussion.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Humans exist in nature, and humans are part of nature, therefore everything humans are, do, and create is natural.

[Ascon]

Humans exist in nature, and humans are part of nature, therefore everything humans are, do, and create is natural.

Kinda makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, if that's the definition, is anything unnatural?

[Tokos]

Humans exist in nature, and humans are part of nature, therefore everything humans are, do, and create is natural.

Kinda makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, if that's the definition, is anything unnatural?

The word could still have meaning in juxtaposition with the supernatural.