Christianity and Homosexuality

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

you sir, are speaking out of your ass on this count. You are confusing lust and love. Go watch broke back mountain, go to Vermont and watch a gay wedding. Because quite frankly, you are letting your own bias cloud the facts.

I'm gay and I didnt like Brokeback Mountain. I suggest Shelter.

I liked it.

[Ascon]

Yes, it is. God is not a part of nature. If God was a part of nature, God could not be a creator deity, as God would have no existence outside of it.

Miracles, by definition, break the rules of nature. Thus, they are outside of it.

Supernatural =/= unnatural as the two words carry vastly different connotations. Nobody looks at a miracle and says "Wow, that's the first unnatural thing I've ever seen!" nor does someone look at Joan Rivers' plastic surgery and comment on its supernatural appearance.

<.<

>.>

In any case, I think you'll find Christian thought is divided on the issue of whether God is 'above' nature (supernatural) or a part of it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Dempublicents1]

Yes, it is. God is not a part of nature. If God was a part of nature, God could not be a creator deity, as God would have no existence outside of it.

Miracles, by definition, break the rules of nature. Thus, they are outside of it.

Supernatural =/= unnatural as the two words carry vastly different connotations.

I'm not talking about connotations. I'm talking about denotations.

In any case, I think you'll find Christian thought is divided on the issue of whether God is 'above' nature (supernatural) or a part of it.

God cannot possibly be a part of nature and also be a Creator deity. Nature could be a part of God, but that would be another matter entirely.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Possibly.

[Gift-of-god]

Supernatural =/= unnatural as the two words carry vastly different connotations. Nobody looks at a miracle and says "Wow, that's the first unnatural thing I've ever seen!" nor does someone look at Joan Rivers' plastic surgery and comment on its supernatural appearance.

<.<

>.>

In any case, I think you'll find Christian thought is divided on the issue of whether God is 'above' nature (supernatural) or a part of it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Most Christians define it thus:

God, the Father: transcendent, i.e. separate from the physical universe.

Jesus, the Son: incarnate, i.e. part of the natural world.

Holy Spirit: both transcendent and immanent (immanent= one with the physical universe). So, the Holy Spirit can be part of nature and yet separate from nature.

[Ascon]

God cannot possibly be a part of nature and also be a Creator deity. Nature could be a part of God, but that would be another matter entirely.

That's based entirely upon your subjective understanding of the nature of God, which is not universal among branches of Christianity. Even if it were, one could very easily define nature in a way that includes God and His abilities.

Most Christians define it thus:

God, the Father: transcendent, i.e. separate from the physical universe.

Jesus, the Son: incarnate, i.e. part of the natural world.

Holy Spirit: both transcendent and immanent (immanent= one with the physical universe). So, the Holy Spirit can be part of nature and yet separate from nature.

When you say "Most" do you mean Catholics? Catholics and Protestants? Everybody who isn't gnostic, Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness?

Because one could very easily conceive a model of the universe that God is a part of, and thus miracles performed by His power are natural events in the same way as a human being conceiving a child.

[Tokos]

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

Contradiction in terms, as love is centred around another person, lust is centred around one's own desires.

I see.
So what exactly is the difference between the love and lust of:

A. a man and a woman that love eachother and want to have sex
B. a man and a man that love eachother and want to have sex
C. a woman and a woman that love eachother and want to have sex

?

None for these purposes, but I don't see what point you are trying to make, as heterosexuality has nothing intrinsically to do with love either.

It's a very misused word.

That's based entirely upon your subjective understanding of the nature of God, which is not universal among branches of Christianity. Even if it were, one could very easily define nature in a way that includes God and His abilities.

You'd be defining a word out of all utility. If God is a part of nature then God did not create nature, ergo God is not the creator.

[Ascon]

You'd be defining a word out of all utility. If God is a part of nature then God did not create nature, ergo God is not the creator.

Oh I don't know about that. If God created the universe by means of "natural" processes (as opposed to using a magic wand) then you can have it both ways. Think of the watchmaker analogy for God. A watchmaker follows a specific set of engineering and mathematical principles to build a watch, and even when he has to intervene in its function to make repairs, he still does so according to those same principles.

[Dempublicents1]

God cannot possibly be a part of nature and also be a Creator deity. Nature could be a part of God, but that would be another matter entirely.

That's based entirely upon your subjective understanding of the nature of God, which is not universal among branches of Christianity. Even if it were, one could very easily define nature in a way that includes God and His abilities.

No, it is based on the definitions of the words. If God is a part of nature, then God did not create nature, as God would therefore have no existence outside of it.

To be able to create nature, God would have to have existence before it - thus, outside of it.

There certainly are religions which define god(s) as part of nature. But those religions do not define their god(s) as creator deities.

[Tokos]

You'd be defining a word out of all utility. If God is a part of nature then God did not create nature, ergo God is not the creator.

Oh I don't know about that. If God created the universe by means of "natural" processes (as opposed to using a magic wand) then you can have it both ways. Think of the watchmaker analogy for God. A watchmaker follows a specific set of engineering and mathematical principles to build a watch, and even when he has to intervene in its function to make repairs, he still does so according to those same principles.

Creating the universe by natural processes is impossible, since they require causality and that can only exist within space-time.

[Ascon]

No, it is based on the definitions of the words. If God is a part of nature, then God did not create nature, as God would therefore have no existence outside of it.

To be able to create nature, God would have to have existence before it - thus, outside of it.

There certainly are religions which define god(s) as part of nature. But those religions do not define their god(s) as creator deities.

I disagree. Some branches of Christianity do exactly that, defining God as a natural being who created the Universe upon a fixed set of principles. (See my reply to Tokos above.)

Creating the universe by natural processes is impossible, since they require causality and that can only exist within space-time.

You're making an assumption about space-time that cannot be proven.

[Dempublicents1]

You'd be defining a word out of all utility. If God is a part of nature then God did not create nature, ergo God is not the creator.

Oh I don't know about that. If God created the universe by means of "natural" processes (as opposed to using a magic wand) then you can have it both ways. Think of the watchmaker analogy for God. A watchmaker follows a specific set of engineering and mathematical principles to build a watch, and even when he has to intervene in its function to make repairs, he still does so according to those same principles.

If God created nature, "natural" processes would not even exist until God created them.

[Ascon]

If God created nature, "natural" processes would not even exist until after that creation.

That's true under the following conditions:
-The Universe as we understand it is unique
-God exists according to *no* processes or laws whatsoever
-God exists outside some form of Universe construct

I reject all 3 of these assumptions, as none of them have been proven and in fact, many Christians reject their implications, if not those conditions themselves.

[Tokos]

You're making an assumption about space-time that cannot be proven.

No I am not. Something never happens unless something caused it. That is the point of saying God is transcendent; it neatly sidesteps the problem of infinite regress.

Furthermore, saying God created nature using natural processes is absurd. It's akin to saying that the first hammer was created with a hammer.

Either God is transcendent, or God is not, and therefore did not exist before the creation, and therefore is nothing qualitatively special.

[Ascon]

No I am not. Something never happens unless something caused it. That is the point of saying God is transcendent; it neatly sidesteps the problem of infinite regress.

Furthermore, saying God created nature using natural processes is absurd. It's akin to saying that the first hammer was created with a hammer.

Either God is transcendent, or God is not, and therefore did not exist before the creation, and therefore is nothing qualitatively special.

And suppose one believes in a universal model of multiple tiers?

[Tokos]

Then God better drop the "Most High" label.

[Nova Magna Germania]

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

Contradiction in terms, as love is centred around another person, lust is centred around one's own desires.

Centred around ones own desires which are centred around another person. If your desire is purely centred on you, that'd be masturbation.

Obviously, you've never been in love.

[Ascon]

Then God better drop the "Most High" label.

::shrug::

[Tokos]

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

Contradiction in terms, as love is centred around another person, lust is centred around one's own desires.

Centred around ones own desires which are centred around another person. If your desire is purely centred on you, that'd be masturbation.

Obviously, you've never been in love.

FFS. Lust involves desiring someone else's body for your own ends - only one's own wellbeing is considered. Love involves wanting the best for them. It really is that simple.

Do you really think that if I'm looking at a woman/man and mentally undressing them then that's love?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Something never happens unless something caused it.

This is actually not true. Methinks you need to read up a bit on modern cosmology.

[Nova Magna Germania]

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

Contradiction in terms, as love is centred around another person, lust is centred around one's own desires.

Centred around ones own desires which are centred around another person. If your desire is purely centred on you, that'd be masturbation.

Obviously, you've never been in love.

FFS. Lust involves desiring someone else's body for your own ends - only one's own wellbeing is considered. Love involves wanting the best for them. It really is that simple.

Do you really think that if I'm looking at a woman/man and mentally undressing them then that's love?

Why do you think that just because X ∈ A, X = A?

It is love when you mentall undress them AND care for them/be intimate with them AND commit to them.

And considering some one else's wellbeing is also an emotion and that emotion is also within you, it doesnt get transmitted to you from outside.

[Tokos]

Yes, it's a different emotion. And you know it is possible for one person to feel both love and lust, it's called being human.

Jeez.

[Carthakk]

exactly what i told my parents when i dropped the religion

[Dempublicents1]

If God created nature, "natural" processes would not even exist until after that creation.

That's true under the following conditions:
-The Universe as we understand it is unique
-God exists according to *no* processes or laws whatsoever
-God exists outside some form of Universe construct

Wrong. God only has to exist outside of our Universe, as our Universe is what defines nature. And That is the only way God could have created it. God may exist within a larger structure and there may be more universes out there. But in order to have created the universe in which we exist (and thus created nature), God would have to exist somehow outside of it.

Any god which exists fully within our universe did not create it and is just as bound by its rules as we are. Such a deity certainly might exist, but it would not be the Creator put forth in most Christian theology.

I reject all 3 of these assumptions, as none of them have been proven and in fact, many Christians reject their implications, if not those conditions themselves.

Show me a Christian who does not believe God created the Universe. They very well may exist, but they would be a very, very small minority.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Yes, it's a different emotion. And you know it is possible for one person to feel both love and lust, it's called being human.

Jeez.

Lets go back to your original dumb claim:

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

And I'll try a more visual approach:



Love and lust can be seperate but sometimes they arent. Sometimes they are intertwined, thats why 2 gays loving each other is not comparable to 2 male heterosexuals loving each other.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And I'll try a more visual approach:



Love and lust can be seperate but sometimes they arent. Sometimes they are intertwined, thats why 2 gays loving each other is not comparable to 2 male heterosexuals loving each other.

Vann Diagrams Yay! Quick, do a visual proof of De Morgan's laws.