Christianity and Homosexuality

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I have never heard the term "bender" before.

It's a deragatory term for gays. Essentially, it alludes to images of them bending over, for obvious reasons.

[United Marktoria]

I have never heard the term "bender" before.

It's a deragatory term for gays. Essentially, it alludes to images of them bending over, for obvious reasons.

I never heard it around my neck of the woods. When someone says "bender" here, everyone thinks of Futurama.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It's a deragatory term for gays.

I figured.

Essentially, it alludes to images of them bending over, for obvious reasons.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I never heard it around my neck of the woods. When someone says "bender" here, everyone thinks of Futurama.

Bender can also mean a binge driking session.

[Big Jim P]

Well, the girl healed, the camera caught it...there were witnesses...hmm, does any of that count?!

No, because I don't know where the video feed from this camera is, or who or where any of these people are.

Do you have any article or anything? I've heard Christian faith healers claim they've caused people to regrow limbs. I've heard claims by Indian (from India) mystics claiming they have magically restored virginities to women.

I've heard plenty of claims. I've never seen a single one of them in any legitimate peer-reviewed journal, and you'd think scientific proof of a miracle would be headline news.

It was all over the news and they showed the video too. People were amazed and all. It was like three or four years ago so I don't have any websites that you can visit that would probably still have the story and its details. But, there was no messing with the tape or anything, and her healing was miraculous. The whole hospital staff would have heard about it and I'm sure the nurse or doctor that was taking care of her could confirm that she was going to die. But she lived-and the angel...

If it was on the news I think that is enough proof. If you look it up you'll find something backing me up.

I'm sure, because that happens all the time. If that's the case, then why did she heal? And how come we cannot find another picture like that? Huh?

That's your job. And the previous sentence is completely and utterly false. After all that's happened in the past few months alone, do you really think that the news is infallible? With all the 'balloon-boy' bullshit?

Believe it or not, please look at the picture below:


A mother believes a visit from an angel saved her sick daughter’s life — and she has the photos to prove it.


Chelsea Banton, 14, was fighting for her life after a bout of pneumonia, a collapsed lung and subsequent infections saw her breathing with the aid of a ventilator at Charlotte Presbyterian Hospital.

As her family gathered to say their final goodbyes and mother Colleen faced the decision on removing her life support, hospital staff noticed a mysterious bright light outside her room.

“On the monitor, there was this bright light,” the Daily Mail reported Mrs Banton as saying.

“And I looked at it and I said, ‘Oh my goodness! It looks like an angel!”

When nurses then took off her oxygen mask, Chelsea’s vitals returned to normal.

A fortnight later, she returned home in time for her 15th birthday.

Chelsea’s mother captured the baffling light on the CCTV monitor with a digital camera.

“If [people] doubt it, that’s fine … but I know what I saw, and the picture’s untouched,” Mrs Banton said.

“I didn’t make it up. ‘I look at things differently than I used to, because I know God is in control.”

Read the full story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28364813/

This is truly a miracle!!!



Look it up. I found this just by looking it up on Google. I'm sure you can find more.

That is the reflection of the fluorescent lights used in hospitals.

If that is the case than how come we don't have another picture like that? Or how come the girl recovered? The doctor's admitted she was going to die. You cannot really prove that that is not an angel. I think the flourescent thing is just a big 'if'

I don't have to prove it's not an angel (you can't prove a negative anyway), you have to prove that it is.

[Blouman Empire]

christians don't base their ideologies on reason, they base it on tradition. Most christians have it hammered into their heads from age 1 that gays are evil and that christians must oppose them with every ounce of resolve they possess, or something irrefutably horrible will happen.

In short, they just do as they're told.

Oh shut up. Even athiests like me get grossed out when i see two benders kissing.

What's a bender?

And I get grossed out whenever I see two robots making out too.

[Gift-of-god]

I don't have to prove it's not an angel (you can't prove a negative anyway), you have to prove that it is.

Actually, you can prove a negative.

That light, however, looks to be simply the light from a window across the hall illuminating a doorway.

[New Sociopia]

I had time on my hands, so studied this a bit. The issue with all of the world's religions, and with holy texts, especially translated ones, is that they're so open to interpretation. What you do when you read a translated bible is try to interpret an interpretation, based on your knowledge of the text which in turn is based on the knowledge of the text in a foreign/extinct language of another person. One of the most well-known pieces of text used against homoexuality is Leviticus 18:22, which depending on the translation you read says something along the lines of 'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.' (NOTE: Bible quotes here are from the New World Translation because my mum is a Jehovah's Witness and it's all that's lying around. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, which is a word-by-word linguistic analysis, the phrase 'lie down' is translated from the Hebrew Šākab which indeed means 'to have sexual relations with.' Any sect which submits to the old testament should therefore by rights be endemically anti-homosexuality. Another significant piece of anti-homosexuality biblical text is in Romans 1:26,27 which states 'That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual apetites, for both the females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed with lust toward one another, males towards males, working what is obscene, and recieving in themselves the full recompense which was due for their error.' The VED offers no saving graces for the usage of the word 'use' in that piece of text. It is apparently as sexist and demeaning as it seems. The 'use' of women is to be fucked by men. I want no truck with a religion which is not just interpretively sexist and homophobic but fundamentally sexist and homophobic too.
However, there's more. Theoretically speaking, and based on the solely sexual definitions of what constitutes 'despicable' homosexuality, I should be able to enter into a relationship with another person of the same gender in a Christian sect, based on a mutual agreement and understanding not to 'lie with' eachother, and based on my linguistic understanding of the text this should be perfectly acceptable. Having relationships with men of a non-sexual nature is seemingly not condemned in any part of the Bible. Would I be able to do that? Be in a loving but non-sexual relationship with someone of the same gender? God says 'no comment'. As far as I am aware, Christian sects either betray their own holy books by betraying the scriptures I mentioned earlier, or embellish them by refusing to allow any sort of non-heteronormative relationships to exist. I know for certain that had I taken a boyfriend into a church of the religion I was raised in, I would have been taken aside very swiftly for an extremely stern word.

So yeah. I conclude that Christianity is inherently discriminative against non-heterosexual people not only because of doctrine but because of an underlying current of discriminative sentiment.

[Rafello]

This is due to the Catholic Church's belief in the sanctity of life and in the potential for such life as represented by semen. It therefore condemns all activities which may lead to the "expenditure", as it were, of semen, but which do not present the possibility of conception (this includes protected sex and masturbation).

This is, of course, convoluted reasoning for many reasons:

1) It presumes that the human male has a limited amount of semen that can be wasted.

2) It neglects the ironic fact that the male body itself with destroy sperm that has been around too long.

3) That all sex must have reproductive potential does not logically follow, whatsoever, for the proposition that life is sacred.

It took me this long to do so, but I've thought of a response to point two. I'm rather embarassed to be posting it this late... but hey.

Human beings, too, die if they are around too long. That doesn't make it acceptable to randomly kill them for pleasure (crude pun / sexual analogy slightly intended).

As for point three, the idea was that sperm are sacred (yes, as per the song) and that sex for pleasure alone destroys them, without giving them a chance to fulfill their purpose.

(You have to remember that the Church is approaching this already biased by the view that sperm, as the foundation stones for life, are sacred and should be treated as such. I know that if this is not your view it's difficult to accept an argument that uses it as its starting point. But then, that's the problem with all arguments like this one - arguing from "two different worlds" as it were, makes it hard for either side to understand and / or accept the other's arguments.)

I don't know if either of those arguments hold any water, but I'm only seventeen, and hardly a philosopher

[The Alma Mater]

This is due to the Catholic Church's belief in the sanctity of life and in the potential for such life as represented by semen. It therefore condemns all activities which may lead to the "expenditure", as it were, of semen, but which do not present the possibility of conception (this includes protected sex and masturbation).

This is, of course, convoluted reasoning for many reasons:

1) It presumes that the human male has a limited amount of semen that can be wasted.

2) It neglects the ironic fact that the male body itself with destroy sperm that has been around too long.

3) That all sex must have reproductive potential does not logically follow, whatsoever, for the proposition that life is sacred.

It took me this long to do so, but I've thought of a response to point two. I'm rather embarassed to be posting it this late... but hey.

Human beings, too, die if they are around too long. That doesn't make it acceptable to randomly kill them for pleasure (crude pun / sexual analogy slightly intended).

As for point three, the idea was that sperm are sacred (yes, as per the song) and that sex for pleasure alone destroys them, without giving them a chance to fulfill their purpose.

(You have to remember that the Church is approaching this already biased by the view that sperm, as the foundation stones for life, are sacred and should be treated as such. I know that if this is not your view it's difficult to accept an argument that uses it as its starting point. But then, that's the problem with all arguments like this one - arguing from "two different worlds" as it were, makes it hard for either side to understand and / or accept the other's arguments.)

I don't know if either of those arguments hold any water, but I'm only seventeen, and hardly a philosopher

An ejaculation contains about 500 million sperms. Even if one succeeds in its purpose of reaching and penetrating an egg, the others will die. By design.
If every sperm is sacred, why does God deem it necessary to let 499.999.999 die for every one that succeeds ?

[Rafello]

This is due to the Catholic Church's belief in the sanctity of life and in the potential for such life as represented by semen. It therefore condemns all activities which may lead to the "expenditure", as it were, of semen, but which do not present the possibility of conception (this includes protected sex and masturbation).

This is, of course, convoluted reasoning for many reasons:

1) It presumes that the human male has a limited amount of semen that can be wasted.

2) It neglects the ironic fact that the male body itself with destroy sperm that has been around too long.

3) That all sex must have reproductive potential does not logically follow, whatsoever, for the proposition that life is sacred.

It took me this long to do so, but I've thought of a response to point two. I'm rather embarassed to be posting it this late... but hey.

Human beings, too, die if they are around too long. That doesn't make it acceptable to randomly kill them for pleasure (crude pun / sexual analogy slightly intended).

As for point three, the idea was that sperm are sacred (yes, as per the song) and that sex for pleasure alone destroys them, without giving them a chance to fulfill their purpose.

(You have to remember that the Church is approaching this already biased by the view that sperm, as the foundation stones for life, are sacred and should be treated as such. I know that if this is not your view it's difficult to accept an argument that uses it as its starting point. But then, that's the problem with all arguments like this one - arguing from "two different worlds" as it were, makes it hard for either side to understand and / or accept the other's arguments.)

I don't know if either of those arguments hold any water, but I'm only seventeen, and hardly a philosopher

An ejaculation contains about 500 million sperms. Even if one succeeds in its purpose of reaching and penetrating an egg, the others will die. By design.
If every sperm is sacred, why does God deem it necessary to let 499.999.999 die for every one that succeeds ?

That's a very good point. I'm sure someone in the Church probably has an answer

As I said, I'm not really a philosopher (unless you coun't Philosophy A Level... ha) and was only trying to offer an alternative viewpoint. To be honest, this debate isn't normally what I go in for... the majority of my friends are either agnostic or atheist, and so it's normally a case of:

"Josh... you know so-'n'-so?"
"Well... the Church says this..."
"That's stupid."
"Yes. It probably is."
"Did we have any English homework?"
"God knows."
"No he doesn't. He doesn't exist."
*general lolling + a little bit of scowling*

[Acadzia]

Sperm and eggs aren't sacred (though a lot of the Ancient Israelites' contemporaries thought that menstrual blood was sacred.) It is the zygote that they form that's sacred.

[The Alma Mater]

Sperm and eggs aren't sacred (though a lot of the Ancient Israelites' contemporaries thought that menstrual blood was sacred.) It is the zygote that they form that's sacred.

In which case there should be no problem with spilling seed, right ?

[Acadzia]

Sperm and eggs aren't sacred (though a lot of the Ancient Israelites' contemporaries thought that menstrual blood was sacred.) It is the zygote that they form that's sacred.

In which case there should be no problem with spilling seed, right ?

Christians have been arguing forever about what exactly Onan's sin was. Personally, I think it was lust (he'd sleep with his brother's wife, but not give her an heir, which was the whole purpose of the law that allowed for him to sleep with her), covetousness (if his brother had no heir, he'd get more of his estate.) It wasn't the spilling in and of itself, it was the motivations for the spilling.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Christians have been arguing forever about what exactly Onan's sin was. Personally, I think it was lust (he'd sleep with his brother's wife, but not give her an heir, which was the whole purpose of the law that allowed for him to sleep with her), covetousness (if his brother had no heir, he'd get more of his estate.) It wasn't the spilling in and of itself, it was the motivations for the spilling.

Why is lust a sin? It's an involuntary mental state.

[Acadzia]

Christians have been arguing forever about what exactly Onan's sin was. Personally, I think it was lust (he'd sleep with his brother's wife, but not give her an heir, which was the whole purpose of the law that allowed for him to sleep with her), covetousness (if his brother had no heir, he'd get more of his estate.) It wasn't the spilling in and of itself, it was the motivations for the spilling.

Why is lust a sin? It's an involuntary mental state.

The initial, "reflexive" lust isn't a sin. It is when you act on the lust (IE, by continuing to fantasize, picking up the chick and taking her home, etc.) that it becomes sin.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The initial, "reflexive" lust isn't a sin. It is when you act on the lust (IE, by continuing to fantasize, picking up the chick and taking her home, etc.) that it becomes sin.

Why?

[Acadzia]

The initial, "reflexive" lust isn't a sin. It is when you act on the lust (IE, by continuing to fantasize, picking up the chick and taking her home, etc.) that it becomes sin.

Why?

"But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." - James 1:14-15

"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl. For what is man's lot from God above, his heritage from the Almighty on high? Is it not ruin for the wicked, disaster for those who do wrong? Does he not see my ways and count my every step? "If I have walked in falsehood or my foot has hurried after deceit-- let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless--if my steps have turned from the path, if my heart has been led by my eyes, or if my hands have been defiled, then may others eat what I have sown, and may my crops be uprooted. "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door, then may my wife grind another man's grain, and may other men sleep with her. For that would have been shameful, a sin to be judged. It is a fire that burns to Destruction; it would have uprooted my harvest." - Job 31:1-12

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever" - 1 John 2:15-17

[Asserted]

Having relationships with men of a non-sexual nature is seemingly not condemned in any part of the Bible. Would I be able to do that? Be in a loving but non-sexual relationship with someone of the same gender?

So yeah. I conclude that Christianity is inherently discriminative against non-heterosexual people not only because of doctrine but because of an underlying current of discriminative sentiment.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[Flameswroth]

The initial, "reflexive" lust isn't a sin. It is when you act on the lust (IE, by continuing to fantasize, picking up the chick and taking her home, etc.) that it becomes sin.

Why?

Adultery, dog. Adultery.

EDIT: not in the context of the story, since the dude was her husband, but in the context of the above 'lust' statement

I get the sinking suspicion however that they 'why' response will continue until the inevitable 'because that's what God said/wanted', which in turn will give rise to the citing of Lot's daughters sleeping with him for preggers and other sexual content from the Bible, eventually allowing this clusterfuck of a topic to rise from the ashes as the shit-phoenix it is

[Acadzia]

I get the sinking suspicion however that they 'why' response will continue until the inevitable 'because that's what God said/wanted', which in turn will give rise to the citing of Lot's daughters sleeping with him for preggers and other sexual content from the Bible, eventually allowing this clusterfuck of a topic to rise from the ashes as the shit-phoenix it is

Probably, but I'm bored enough to humor him.

[Gift-of-god]

The initial, "reflexive" lust isn't a sin. It is when you act on the lust (IE, by continuing to fantasize, picking up the chick and taking her home, etc.) that it becomes sin.

Why?

Because you are a member of a nomadic desert tribe, and the easiest way to ensure a steady supply of warriors (to protect or seize the scarce resources) is to have as many women pregnant as possible at all times?

Most of Christianity's problems with sexual 'deviance' stem from the fact that we are no longer fighting the Whomeverites for access to water and arable land.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

"But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." - James 1:14-15

"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl. For what is man's lot from God above, his heritage from the Almighty on high? Is it not ruin for the wicked, disaster for those who do wrong? Does he not see my ways and count my every step? "If I have walked in falsehood or my foot has hurried after deceit-- let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless--if my steps have turned from the path, if my heart has been led by my eyes, or if my hands have been defiled, then may others eat what I have sown, and may my crops be uprooted. "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door, then may my wife grind another man's grain, and may other men sleep with her. For that would have been shameful, a sin to be judged. It is a fire that burns to Destruction; it would have uprooted my harvest." - Job 31:1-12

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever" - 1 John 2:15-17

Scripture =/= justification

Just so you know, I completely ignore all arguments from scripture, because they are useless.

If something cannot be justified without scripture, it cannot be justified at all.

If something can be justified without scripture, then simply justify it without scripture.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because you are a member of a nomadic desert tribe, and the easiest way to ensure a steady supply of warriors (to protect or seize the scarce resources) is to have as many women pregnant as possible at all times?

Most of Christianity's problems with sexual 'deviance' stem from the fact that we are no longer fighting the Whomeverites for access to water and arable land.

It's because a lot of the laws in the bible were made for a time in which they were applicable, but are no longer applicable today. However, even though they create more problems today than they prevent, they are still clung to, because people insist that the bible is inerrent and god's laws unchanging.

[Acadzia]

"But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." - James 1:14-15

"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl. For what is man's lot from God above, his heritage from the Almighty on high? Is it not ruin for the wicked, disaster for those who do wrong? Does he not see my ways and count my every step? "If I have walked in falsehood or my foot has hurried after deceit-- let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless--if my steps have turned from the path, if my heart has been led by my eyes, or if my hands have been defiled, then may others eat what I have sown, and may my crops be uprooted. "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door, then may my wife grind another man's grain, and may other men sleep with her. For that would have been shameful, a sin to be judged. It is a fire that burns to Destruction; it would have uprooted my harvest." - Job 31:1-12

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever" - 1 John 2:15-17

Scripture =/= justification

Just so you know, I completely ignore all arguments from scripture, because they are useless.

If something cannot be justified without scripture, it cannot be justified at all.

If something can be justified without scripture, then simply justify it without scripture.

Copied and pasted this:

Lust is the fourth in a series of Seven Deadly Sins. Their name describes their severity: these are mortal sins.

The church teaches that when someone chooses mortal sin they exercise their free will to forfeit heaven and choose hell.

The seven vices also known as “Capital Sins” or “Deadly Sins” lead to breaking one or more of the Ten Commandments, so they are, in fact, quite serious sins.

What are Mortal Sins, Anyway?

A mortal sin is an act or thought which makes one turn away from God and turn toward something ungodly instead.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mortal sin “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God… (CCC 1855).

The church believes that mortal sin erodes the presence of Christ in the sinner’s soul. It brings pain, anguish and suffering to the one who sins and to those around him. Mortal sins jeopardize a soul’s eternal life.

Is Attraction the Same as Lust?

The church says that it’s normal and healthy to be attracted to and appreciative of the opposite sex. That’s not lust, and it’s not a sin.

Lust is considering and treating others as mere sex objects, not people but rather dispensable things which gratify sexual cravings. Lust is having someone please you, whether in fantasy or reality; it depersonalizes the object of lust. It divides that which God meant to join together: sexual love with committed married life.

What is Lust, Exactly?

Lust, like greed and gluttony is a sin of imbalanced attachment to physical things. Lust is an imbalanced attachment to sexual activity and the physical pleasure it brings.

One of Jesus’ greatest concerns from his sermon on the mount (see Matthew chapter 5) is that we need to not treat people as objects, and lust does just that.

Lust reduces a person from a whole being made in the image of God to a mere object of personal satisfaction. It leads us away from God and hurts our relationships with other people. Lustful relationships can never be enduring, satisfying and healthy ones.

What Kind of Thoughts Count as Lust?

Spontaneous involuntary sexual thoughts, like the ones that occur during adolescence, aren’t sinful because they aren’t an act of conscious free will. These thoughts can be rejected and dismissed without sin occurring.

The sin of lust occurs when one intentionally initiates and continues fto antasize about another person in a lustfully sexual way, knowing that it is wrong, but choosing to do it anyway.

When Jesus said “that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart” (Matthew 5:28) he taught that sins begin with a thought.

Thinking lustful thoughts about another person is sinful, but acting on that thought is even worse because it has social consequences. One thought-sin of lust can lead to a worse one.

The Antidote to the Deadly Sin of Lust - Chastity

Chastity is refraining from sexual activity until marriage and then enjoying a lifetime of sexual activity within the bounds of marriage.

Chastity is also moderation in dress, speech, thoughts, and sexual activity. Without chastity, humans are not unlike animals which copulate purely out of instinct. Chastity compliments the higher intelligence of humans.