Christianity and Homosexuality

[Blouman Empire]

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.

Yes watching a movie is really a great way to prove something.

[Blouman Empire]

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.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

I did not say homosexuals were incapable of love, I said that whether you want to sleep with men or women has nothing to do with love. Whether I as a heterosexual am attracted to a woman's body is different to whether I like her as a person, and love between straight men can and does exist (we just generally don't use that term, being guys).

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

http://sudharshan.files.wordpress.com/2 ... image1.gif

Well that's a scientific theory.

Also Bottle, why have your standards dropped?

[Blouman Empire]

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.

What, you want to have sex with someone and you lust for their body and then doing them that is masturbation?

Lust isn't love just like having sex isn't love it may feel like it but it isn't.

[Bunyippie]

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 suggested solely on the count of its more toward the chick flick gushy love then hard core man on man butt secks

[Nova Magna Germania]

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 suggested solely on the count of its more toward the chick flick gushy love then hard core man on man butt secks

That would be porn, shelter isnt.

[Blouman Empire]

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 suggested solely on the count of its more toward the chick flick gushy love then hard core man on man butt secks

That would be porn, shelter isnt.

I reckon hey, if you wanted to watch gay porn why would you watch Brokeback Mountain? It's like watching Notting Hill expecting to see striaght porn.

[Gift-of-god]

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

I mean every sect that follows the Nicene Creed. There are exceptions, of course, like process theologians. This means "the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, and most Protestant denominations." (stolen from wiki)

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.

Yes, you could, but most Christian sects would consider such a belief heretical, as far as I understand. Now, many of the more progressive ones won't give you a hard time with that, and would enjoy the discourse as to god's possible immanence, but I wouldn't bring it up at an Opus Dei meeting.

The nice thing about such a model, though, is that it is consistent with the existing scientific data. However, it also brings up issues with god's supposed omnipotence. If god can only act within nature, then god is limited.

Now, to tie it back to homosexuality: since homosexuality exists in nature, is it then an act of god?

[The Alma Mater]

Now, to tie it back to homosexuality: since homosexuality exists in nature, is it then an act of god?

Naturally.

Yes,yes - bad pun But it is. As is forbidding to give in to those emotions.

Of course, now I am going to paraphrase Lucivar Yaslana:

"The first law is NOT obedience, but to love, to cherish and to protect"

Pity Anne Bishop is an heretic

[Arkinesia]

Okay, there's something I don't get. According to Christian philosophy, all sins are equal and everyone's a sinner, right? So why do the kind of Christians that hate on homosexuals leave divorced people, adulterers, liars, and people that work on the sabbath alone? It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

Christianity cannot change human nature. The real issue was best described by my English professor when we discussed this issue.

"For us, sins are all the same. However, we don't identify with various sins in the same way. When your friend tells you 'hey man, I'm having a problem with lustful thoughts' you aren't really surprised by it, and can identify with that. When your friend says 'I need some Biblical counsel. I'm gay', you'll probably be shocked at first, and seemingly paralyzed second, because you can't really identify with that. It's not like we struggle with homosexuality 'from time to time'."

In that same class, it was discussed how homosexuality could be a sin if it were genetic. My professor had a roommate in college who was a kleptomaniac, which is genetic–does that give him license to steal as he pleases?

[The New Everlasting]

Okay, there's something I don't get. According to Christian philosophy, all sins are equal and everyone's a sinner, right? So why do the kind of Christians that hate on homosexuals leave divorced people, adulterers, liars, and people that work on the sabbath alone? It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

Christianity cannot change human nature. The real issue was best described by my English professor when we discussed this issue.

"For us, sins are all the same. However, we don't identify with various sins in the same way. When your friend tells you 'hey man, I'm having a problem with lustful thoughts' you aren't really surprised by it, and can identify with that. When your friend says 'I need some Biblical counsel. I'm gay', you'll probably be shocked at first, and seemingly paralyzed second, because you can't really identify with that. It's not like we struggle with homosexuality 'from time to time'."

In that same class, it was discussed how homosexuality could be a sin if it were genetic. My professor had a roommate in college who was a kleptomaniac, which is genetic–does that give him license to steal as he pleases?

Speak for yourself.

[The Alma Mater]

In that same class, it was discussed how homosexuality could be a sin if it were genetic. My professor had a roommate in college who was a kleptomaniac, which is genetic–does that give him license to steal as he pleases?

You are confusing a "crime" against God (sin) with a crime against the land (crime).

God may well allow the person to steal, since that is how God made that person. Doesn't mean the law of the land agrees.
The opposite can also be true: God might say something is fine (selling your daughter into slavery), but the law might say it is not.

[Ascon]

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.

Which is exactly what I'm saying, except that you're assuming that the Universe is unique where I'm saying if God exists outside it, then He may well be within a "higher tier" if you get what I mean. In such a case, we can't assume the laws of nature are different between it and this one.

Even if you toss all that out, because remember we're being hypothetical here, Consider the watchmaker analogy I offered before, where the watchmaker exists outside the watch, but still builds and tinkers with it using a fixes set of laws and principles.

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 wouldn't necessarily say that either. One can build a house and still reside within it, can he not?

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.

Pick any Mormon. They believe that God was, in turn, created by another God. That suggests either that He was created within this universe or another.

[Arkinesia]

In that same class, it was discussed how homosexuality could be a sin if it were genetic. My professor had a roommate in college who was a kleptomaniac, which is genetic–does that give him license to steal as he pleases?

You are confusing a "crime" against God (sin) with a crime against the land (crime).

God may well allow the person to steal, since that is how God made that person. Doesn't mean the law of the land agrees.
The opposite can also be true: God might say someone is fine (selling your daughter into slavery), but the law might say it is not.

The Bible says that the law of the land is to be followed unless it prevents worship of God, so I'd say your case is invalid.

Since temper is considered genetic as well, we could use that, no? Do not let the sun set on your anger?

[The New Everlasting]

Pick any Mormon. They believe that God was, in turn, created by another God. That suggests either that He was created within this universe or another.

This.

[Tsukasa-chan]

I must admit I'm getting a little confused as to what people mean when they use the term 'God' here. I was under the impression that omnipotence* was a key part of the Christian deity. Yet it seems that Ascon has a different idea - that God is simply the creator of this universe and may be part of something larger (multiverse, anyone?); doesn't this mean that he is governed by the rules of said larger construct and hence not omnipotent? Not that I have anything wrong with such a redefinition; I'm simply curious and a little confused.

Oh, and casting my mind way back to the OP, I think that anti-SSM sentiment on the part of an individual is either a) an expression of a personal prejudice against homosexuality that coincides with religion, b) a misunderstanding of the cause of the SSM movement and/or it's effects, or c) a reluctance to giving equal rights to gays which I simply cannot understand.

At the risk of digging up an old war, the marriage vs civil union debate seems to be a battle between idealists and pragmatists. If you're looking strictly at benefits afforded by the law, there's no reason not to simply accept the use of 'civil union'. However, I understand those that think the right to have one's union described as a marriage is worth fighting for, and I'm all for doing so.

Oh, and while I'm (potentially) annoying people, let me just say I'm not against polygamy, divorce or consensual incest (although having a child from such a union seems horribly irresponsible to me). Do you hate me yet?

*Regarding omnipotence, those who haven't read about the omnipotence paradox might find it interesting to think about.

[Dempublicents1]

Of course, now I am going to paraphrase Lucivar Yaslana:

"The first law is NOT obedience, but to love, to cherish and to protect"

Pity Anne Bishop is an heretic

Glee! *rarely meets anyone else who has read Anne Bishop*

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.

Which is exactly what I'm saying, except that you're assuming that the Universe is unique where I'm saying if God exists outside it, then He may well be within a "higher tier" if you get what I mean. In such a case, we can't assume the laws of nature are different between it and this one.

I'm not assuming that the universe is unique. I am only pointing out that, to have created it, God must have an existence outside of it. "Nature" refers specifically to our universe. There may be a similar "nature" outside of it, in a structure in which God exists, but that would not be what we would refer to, as we have no basis on which to make any statements at all about it. If God exists in a different structure, we can make no assumptions whatsoever about its laws.

Even if you toss all that out, because remember we're being hypothetical here, Consider the watchmaker analogy I offered before, where the watchmaker exists outside the watch, but still builds and tinkers with it using a fixes set of laws and principles.

But the watchmaker is not part of the watch - which is what you were suggesting about God before.

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 wouldn't necessarily say that either. One can build a house and still reside within it, can he not?

Residing within it and being part of it are not the same thing. And one had existence outside of the house as well - before it was built.

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.

Pick any Mormon. They believe that God was, in turn, created by another God. That suggests either that He was created within this universe or another.

Like I said, a minority. Although, I believe that idea was debunked last time we had an actual Mormon in a thread where the idea was mentioned.

[Ascon]

I mean every sect that follows the Nicene Creed. There are exceptions, of course, like process theologians. This means "the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, and most Protestant denominations." (stolen from wiki)

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.

Yes, you could, but most Christian sects would consider such a belief heretical, as far as I understand. Now, many of the more progressive ones won't give you a hard time with that, and would enjoy the discourse as to god's possible immanence, but I wouldn't bring it up at an Opus Dei meeting.

The nice thing about such a model, though, is that it is consistent with the existing scientific data. However, it also brings up issues with god's supposed omnipotence. If god can only act within nature, then god is limited.

Now, to tie it back to homosexuality: since homosexuality exists in nature, is it then an act of god?

That's an interesting question because what it's boiling down to is: is anything natural automatically good? Since infanticide exists in nature, and we would all agree, I assume, that infanticide is a bad thing, we cannot say that natural = good if natural is to be defined by what we observe in terms of the behavior of other animal species.

So either our definition of natural is flawed or we have to concede that nature isn't always a good thing.

I would suggest tightening up the definition of nature. For instance, it's natural for certain species to live underwater. It's natural for certain species to build dams. It's natural for certain species to live monogamously. We'd find it odd to see a colony of cats building a dam, and not too much of a leap to call such an event unnatural.

So the next step is: Is is natural for human beings to be homosexual? How does one evaluate that? Many have made a big point of arguing over whether humans are born gay or whether it's a trait that gets picked up some way or another along the way. Personally, I don't think it matters, because there are arguments on both sides in either case. If people are indeed born gay then those who would criticize homosexuality would simply conclude that it's a birth defect, like blindness or schizophrenia. If people indeed become gay at some point then opponents will simply assume some sort of trauma caused it or whatever.

So IMHO whether or not homosexuality is natural for humans has no thing whatsoever to do with how individual human beings "become" gay.

[Ascon]

I'm not assuming that the universe is unique. I am only pointing out that, to have created it, God must have an existence outside of it. "Nature" refers specifically to our universe. There may be a similar "nature" outside of it, in a structure in which God exists, but that would not be what we would refer to, as we have no basis on which to make any statements at all about it. If God exists in a different structure, we can make no assumptions whatsoever about its laws.

That's right, which means it's not unreasonable for someone to hold the belief that God operates according to natural laws, whether He created those laws or not.

But the watchmaker is not part of the watch - which is what you were suggesting about God before.

Residing within it and being part of it are not the same thing. And one had existence outside of the house as well - before it was built.

No, I don't mean to suggest that. What I'm saying is that the watchmaker obeys the same set of principles and laws that the watch does. (Even if he doesn't have to.)

Like I said, a minority. Although, I believe that idea was debunked last time we had an actual Mormon in a thread where the idea was mentioned.

It doesn't matter that they're a minority, and I've never said otherwise. My point form the beginning has been that Christian thought on this topic is not universal.

[Gift-of-god]

That's an interesting question because what it's boiling down to is: is anything natural automatically good? Since infanticide exists in nature, and we would all agree, I assume, that infanticide is a bad thing, we cannot say that natural = good if natural is to be defined by what we observe in terms of the behavior of other animal species.

So either our definition of natural is flawed or we have to concede that nature isn't always a good thing.

I would suggest tightening up the definition of nature. For instance, it's natural for certain species to live underwater. It's natural for certain species to build dams. It's natural for certain species to live monogamously. We'd find it odd to see a colony of cats building a dam, and not too much of a leap to call such an event unnatural.

So the next step is: Is is natural for human beings to be homosexual? How does one evaluate that? Many have made a big point of arguing over whether humans are born gay or whether it's a trait that gets picked up some way or another along the way. Personally, I don't think it matters, because there are arguments on both sides in either case. If people are indeed born gay then those who would criticize homosexuality would simply conclude that it's a birth defect, like blindness or schizophrenia. If people indeed become gay at some point then opponents will simply assume some sort of trauma caused it or whatever.

So IMHO whether or not homosexuality is natural for humans has no thing whatsoever to do with how individual human beings "become" gay.

Well, first of all, I never suggested that what is natural is also good. Cancer and wild strawberries are both natural, but the former is bad while the latter is good. Now, if god acts in nature, god is responsible for both cancer and wild strawberries, i.e. the bad and the good. This challenges the traditional Christian concept of omnibenevolence, so such a model of god would stray even farther from orthodox Christian views.

Now, setting aside the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural for humans, we can agree that it exists in nature. Now, if nature is an ongoing act of god, then homosexuality in nature would also be an act of god, would it not?

[Dempublicents1]

At the risk of digging up an old war, the marriage vs civil union debate seems to be a battle between idealists and pragmatists. If you're looking strictly at benefits afforded by the law, there's no reason not to simply accept the use of 'civil union'.

Sure there is. First of all, to truly be equal, "civil union" would have to be used for everybody. Second of all, it would require all of the laws on the books about marriage to be changed. Even if this was accomplished fairly quickly and easily (as if anything in the law ever is), it would still take time and money that doesn't need to be spent.

[Ascon]

I must admit I'm getting a little confused as to what people mean when they use the term 'God' here. I was under the impression that omnipotence* was a key part of the Christian deity. Yet it seems that Ascon has a different idea - that God is simply the creator of this universe and may be part of something larger (multiverse, anyone?); doesn't this mean that he is governed by the rules of said larger construct and hence not omnipotent? Not that I have anything wrong with such a redefinition; I'm simply curious and a little confused.

I think that's fair to say, in the sense that for our practical purposes, God is omnipotent, but obviously if He was in turn created, then that suggests another level that existed before He did. I don't think that a rule or force obeyed by God Himself is necessarily a limit to his practical omnipotence. If God establishes right and wrong, then He would cease to be God if He were to contradict Himself in some way. CAN He do so? I'd imagine He can, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

In a theoretical sense, is God omnipotent? I don't know that He is. "Can God create an object so heavy He cannot lift it?" How do you answer a question like that without setting some kind of conceptual cap on what He can do?

This is where Catholic/Protestant Christian theology and Mormon theology dart off in two directions, because Mormons believe in a God who is constantly increasing and growing Himself (and will continue to do so forever), and to be able to do that there must necessarily be some non-infinite value to His ability. That's purely theoretical, of course, since He is, for all practical purposes, omnipotent.

Having said that...

Doesn't that make one wonder, if God is ABSOLUTELY omnipotent, and that the answer to ANY "Can God...?" question must necessarily be yes, then what's the answer to "Can God forgive someone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit?" "Can God let you into Heaven even if you never bother accepting Jesus Christ?"

Answer "yes" to either of those questions and suddenly God ceases to be omni benevolent, because He doesn't do so. "Yes" to the latter also makes Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross unnecessary.

[The Alma Mater]

I must admit I'm getting a little confused as to what people mean when they use the term 'God' here. I was under the impression that omnipotence* was a key part of the Christian deity. Yet it seems that Ascon has a different idea - that God is simply the creator of this universe and may be part of something larger (multiverse, anyone?); doesn't this mean that he is governed by the rules of said larger construct and hence not omnipotent? Not that I have anything wrong with such a redefinition; I'm simply curious and a little confused.

I think that's fair to say, in the sense that for our practical purposes, God is omnipotent, but obviously if He was in turn created, then that suggests another level that existed before He did.

Though it is of course not necessary that that previous level was "more omnipotent". People can have children that outperform their parents. We might in the future be able to build robots superior to us in every way. Less can create more.

[Ascon]

Well, first of all, I never suggested that what is natural is also good. Cancer and wild strawberries are both natural, but the former is bad while the latter is good. Now, if god acts in nature, god is responsible for both cancer and wild strawberries, i.e. the bad and the good. This challenges the traditional Christian concept of omnibenevolence, so such a model of god would stray even farther from orthodox Christian views.

Now, setting aside the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural for humans, we can agree that it exists in nature. Now, if nature is an ongoing act of god, then homosexuality in nature would also be an act of god, would it not?

Maybe. I think that depends largely on how you view God's level of participation in the day to day running of the Universe. Does God keep His hands dirty, tweaking and tinkering on a daily basis, or is he like the old Watchmaker (not to be confused with the watchmaker analogy I used earlier) where He created the Universe, wound it up, and just lets it do its thing?

If God exercises control over every little event then yes, the existence of any homosexuality must be directly attributable to Him by default. If, on the other hand, God is more of an observer, then who can say?

I think the reality is probably somewhere in between. If God micromanages then free will means nothing. If God is a "hands off" kind of guy then prayer is a waste of time.

A lot of Christians probably see it that way as well, with the added variable of activity by the Devil, who is ultimately held responsible for any evil or "bad" stuff that happens. The world is regarded as corrupt and difficult because of his influence and so anything bad that happens can be thus explained. "If homosexuality is bad, then it's the Devil's fault it exists."

That's how I understand it to be viewed from the majority of Christians.

Though it is of course not necessary that that previous level was "more omnipotent". People can have children that outperform their parents. We might in the future be able to build robots superior to us in every way. Less can create more.

True, though I'd add to that that the created must at least start out less powerful than its creator.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm not assuming that the universe is unique. I am only pointing out that, to have created it, God must have an existence outside of it. "Nature" refers specifically to our universe. There may be a similar "nature" outside of it, in a structure in which God exists, but that would not be what we would refer to, as we have no basis on which to make any statements at all about it. If God exists in a different structure, we can make no assumptions whatsoever about its laws.

That's right, which means it's not unreasonable for someone to hold the belief that God operates according to natural laws, whether He created those laws or not.

I never said it was unreasonable for someone to believe that God operates according to natural laws - even in this universe. God may have decided to only work within the laws of this universe.

But that wouldn't change the fact that a creator God would be outside of nature, as defined by this universe.

[Ascon]

I never said it was unreasonable for someone to believe that God operates according to natural laws - even in this universe. God may have decided to only work within the laws of this universe.

But that wouldn't change the fact that a creator God would be outside of nature, as defined by this universe.

I don't agree. I think we're coming at this from different starting points so it's natural (pardon the pun) to have differing assumptions, so let's agree to disagree.