Christianity and Homosexuality

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

[The Alma Mater]

Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable?

Accountable for *what* exactly ? God never bothered to explain why homosexuality is an abomination - and if people wish to argue that all sex with no chance of resulting in reproduction is an abomination as well hell is going to be a very, very, VERY busy place.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

[Kobrania]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

If it were not genetically imprinted, such reasoning's wouldn't be expressed in the first place, making them either Bi-sexual or actually gay.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable?

Accountable for *what* exactly ? God never bothered to explain why homosexuality is an abomination - and if people wish to argue that all sex with no chance of resulting in reproduction is an abomination as well hell is going to be a very, very, VERY busy place.

This is a fair question. My answer simply is that it violates Gods "Law of Chastity". This law states basically that sex is sanctioned only within the bounds of marriage. This, incidentally, goes for unmarried heterosexual sex as well.

Now, before you ask about sex within a legal gay marriage, I don't know the answer to that one. I have never heard the modern prophets speak to that. The only thing, and this is not scripture, but just a guess, is that God's law is higher then man's.

So, homosexuality is not a sin, the unmarried sexual relations is.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

If it were not genetically imprinted, such reasoning's wouldn't be expressed in the first place, making them either Bi-sexual or actually gay.

I can see your point here. What makes one boy who was shunned by a girl 'become' gay, while the other boys just shrug it off. I am not sure there. I am certainly aware of the opposite cases where a man has been married for 20 years and suddenly reveals he is gay. Is this environmental? Genetic? Not sure.

[Ascon]

They don't nead to necessarily believe anything. If their beliefs were logically consistent, then they would necessarily believe some such thing. But we can safely assume that people who make that particular argument do not necessarily worry about logical consistency in their arguments.

I don't think you give them enough credit.

Exactly, there is a logical contradiction in the classical Xian model between God's omnipotence and humanity's free will.

Not sure what you mean by "classical." There's as much debate and disagreement within Christianity on that point as any.

Let us suppose that being omniscient involves being infallible, and believing that p if and only if it is true that p.

Let us also suppose that God existed in 1900, and that omniscience is part of his essence.

Now, suppose that Jones mowed his lawn on 1/1/2000.

Then God believed in 1900 that Jones would mow his lawn on 1/1/2000.

Did Jones have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn?

No. Because that would mean either (1) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God had a false belief in 1900, or (2) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God did not believe in 1900 that Jones would mow his lawn on 1/1/2000, or (3) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God did not exist in 1900. And each of these alternatives is impossible.

Linky.

That makes certain assumptions about the nature of time and God's relationship to it. If time is singular from God's point of view then foreknowledge/causality become moot.

The traditional Christian view seems to suggest that this transcendent wonderful being who created the entire universe and had the vision to imagine the complexity of the entire evolution of the cosmos also has an inordinate interest in the sexuality of one species of technologically savvy primates on one single planet. The same view also ignores that this being's disproportionate interest also just happens to coincide with the sexual mores of a Bronze Age nomadic society.

Not sure why you're characterizing it as "inordinate." Christianity is far wider and more complex than simply serving as a foil for homosexuals.

No. It does not get back to that question. The facts are simple: many animals engage in homosexuality, these animals are a part of nature, therefore a part of nature engages in homosexuality. If god is all of nature (again, this is not the traditional Xian view), then a part of god engages in homosexuality.

Not sure why that would be relevant, given that Christians would be the first to tell you that what animals do is irrelevant. I'd also point out that nobody's making the claim that God = nature. By your logic, God also engages in infanticide because some animals do so. Is that relevant? I hardly think so. Animals, unlike humans, aren't capable of sin because they aren't capable of understanding.

You're comparing an omnipotent being with simple animal behavior, then calling the Christians irrational.

[Ascon]

....which wouldn't change the fact that he existed outside of it.

Not sure why that'd be a problem, but okay.

That still wouldn't make God "part of" the Universe. It would just mean that God's presence was necessary for the existence of the Universe. If God was part of the Universe, the reverse would be true - that the Universe seeking to exist would mean that God would cease to exist.

I don't agree with that last assertion. God can certainly be an integral part of the Universe without relying upon it to exist. That would seem to suggest that the Universe relies on Him to exist, but that's fine.

[Gift-of-god]

I don't think you give them enough credit.

No. I give them exactly the credit they deserve. They use the internet and freedom of speech (which are far more unnatural than homosexuality) to denounce something that is, in comparison, quite natural. So, when I say that they are logically inconsistent in their arguments, it is because anyone who uses that particular argument is exhibiting logical inconsistency.

Not sure what you mean by "classical." There's as much debate and disagreement within Christianity on that point as any.

Not really. Most Xians believe in an ominpotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Trinity, do they not?

That makes certain assumptions about the nature of time and God's relationship to it. If time is singular from God's point of view then foreknowledge/causality become moot.

Not really. That just explains how he is omniscient, but it doesn't avoid the problem.

Not sure why you're characterizing it as "inordinate." Christianity is far wider and more complex than simply serving as a foil for homosexuals.

Because a being such as that would be interested in things far more cosmic in scale than homosexuality. It seems weird that a god that can create whole galaxies would even care about our sex lives. It is more logical to believe that these sexual mores actually come from the authors of these books, i.e. the Bronze Age nomads I mentioned earlier.

No. It does not get back to that question. The facts are simple: many animals engage in homosexuality, these animals are a part of nature, therefore a part of nature engages in homosexuality. If god is all of nature (again, this is not the traditional Xian view), then a part of god engages in homosexuality.

Not sure why that would be relevant, given that Christians would be the first to tell you that what animals do is irrelevant. I'd also point out that nobody's making the claim that God = nature. By your logic, God also engages in infanticide because some animals do so. Is that relevant? I hardly think so. Animals, unlike humans, aren't capable of sin because they aren't capable of understanding.

You're comparing an omnipotent being with simple animal behavior, then calling the Christians irrational.

I see that you are having trouble following the conversation. You originally started talking about god as nature. I have been very careful to keep our discussions about this model of god separate from our discussion about the classic Xian model of god. Two different models of god. You got that?

So, in the paragraph of mine you quoted above, I was obviously not discussing the Christain model of god. You can tell because I explicitly mention it (see the bolded bit).

So, now you can plainly see that I wasn't actually "comparing an omnipotent being with simple animal behavior, then calling the Christians irrational."

[Pastoresia]

Christianity condemns the act of sexual contact between two men. It does not, however, condemn the tendencies of a homosexual male or female i.e. their lifestyle and mannerisms. God tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but with what? Not necessarily more humans.

Animals practice homosexual acts more and more in these times, but will they go to Hell? Should they know better?

[Ascon]

No. I give them exactly the credit they deserve. They use the internet and freedom of speech (which are far more unnatural than homosexuality) to denounce something that is, in comparison, quite natural. So, when I say that they are logically inconsistent in their arguments, it is because anyone who uses that particular argument is exhibiting logical inconsistency.

Maybe. Or maybe they'd see it as perfectly natural for a human being to use a computer or a microphone wheras it wouldn't be natural for a human to live in the ocean and breathe through a blowhole. Your opinion seems to be based on the idea that what's natural for one species is natural for all.

Not really. Most Xians believe in an ominpotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Trinity, do they not?

Sure, but that doesn't mean they agree on the exact nature of freewill vs. divine intervention.

Not really. That just explains how he is omniscient, but it doesn't avoid the problem.

I don't agree, but meh.

Because a being such as that would be interested in things far more cosmic in scale than homosexuality. It seems weird that a god that can create whole galaxies would even care about our sex lives. It is more logical to believe that these sexual mores actually come from the authors of these books, i.e. the Bronze Age nomads I mentioned earlier.

That depends on what assumptions underlie your logic process.

I see that you are having trouble following the conversation. You originally started talking about god as nature. I have been very careful to keep our discussions about this model of god separate from our discussion about the classic Xian model of god. Two different models of god. You got that?

Oh calm down. There's no need to get snippy.

Remember that I too am referring to a God as understood by some Christians. I'm not interested in the "classic" model, because we all know that one. All Christians believe in an omnipotent God, even if the exact nature of what it means to be omnipotent is subject to discussion. Christian thought as a whole isn't nearly as narrow as you're characterizing it to be.

[Ascon]

Christianity condemns the act of sexual contact between two men. It does not, however, condemn the tendencies of a homosexual male or female i.e. their lifestyle and mannerisms. God tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but with what? Not necessarily more humans.

Animals practice homosexual acts more and more in these times, but will they go to Hell? Should they know better?

Christianity does not hold that animals are capable of sin, as animals are not aware enough to understand right vs. wrong. Some Christians also hold that animals to not posses a soul.

[The Araucania]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

Your flag represent the "american militia movement", its an armed movement with 40,000 integrants
you can informate on google by searching "american militia"

[KiloMikeAlpha]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

Your flag represent the "american militia movement", its an armed movement with 40,000 integrants
you can informate on google by searching "american militia"

I consider myself an American Patriot who wil take up arms if needs be to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. If that makes me militia, then yes.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Christianity condemns the act of sexual contact between two men. It does not, however, condemn the tendencies of a homosexual male or female i.e. their lifestyle and mannerisms. God tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but with what? Not necessarily more humans.

Animals practice homosexual acts more and more in these times, but will they go to Hell? Should they know better?

Christianity does not hold that animals are capable of sin, as animals are not aware enough to understand right vs. wrong. Some Christians also hold that animals to not posses a soul.

Also, as far as I recall correctly, animals do not perform homosexual acts for pleasure, but to indicate dominance.

Quite similar to the "big bad prisoner / prison bitch" relationship.

[Dougenators]

gays suck and belong in hell

[Redwulf]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

Your flag represent the "american militia movement", its an armed movement with 40,000 integrants
you can informate on google by searching "american militia"

I consider myself an American Patriot who wil take up arms if needs be to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

Then where the hell were you during the eight years an enemy of the Constitution was in office? Anyone who makes that claim should rightly be either dead or in jail after W. Either that or they clearly don't mean it.

[Redwulf]

gays suck and belong in hell

Just like trolls?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

Your flag represent the "american militia movement", its an armed movement with 40,000 integrants
you can informate on google by searching "american militia"

I consider myself an American Patriot who wil take up arms if needs be to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

Then where the hell were you during the eight years an enemy of the Constitution was in office? Anyone who makes that claim should rightly be either dead or in jail after W. Either that or they clearly don't mean it.

Sadly, I admit I was asleep politically. I was working. I was raising my family. I was not directly affected by the political theater. At least I didnt believe that I was. All of that has changed. I was awakened this year.

I have always said that Bush was just as bad as Obama has been. This, however, is not an Obama thread. I will leave it there.

[Bottle]

A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

In my experience, most of those boys stay straight, they just keep hating women. They're the ones who write the long op-eds about how all women are simultaneously frigid bitches and also whoring sluts.

[The Araucania]

KiloMikeAlpha you are an american militian?
........................................................................................................................

What is a militian?

Your flag represent the "american militia movement", its an armed movement with 40,000 integrants
you can informate on google by searching "american militia"

I consider myself an American Patriot who wil take up arms if needs be to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. If that makes me militia, then yes.

OK

[KiloMikeAlpha]

A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

In my experience, most of those boys stay straight, they just keep hating women. They're the ones who write the long op-eds about how all women are simultaneously frigid bitches and also whoring sluts.

Very true. I have seen my share of those woman-hating guys.

[Gift-of-god]

Maybe. Or maybe they'd see it as perfectly natural for a human being to use a computer or a microphone wheras it wouldn't be natural for a human to live in the ocean and breathe through a blowhole. Your opinion seems to be based on the idea that what's natural for one species is natural for all.

Fine. If we discuss what is natural for humans, as opposed to artifical, then they are inconsistent in that they are using a definition of natural that somehow excludes homosexuality but still encompasses such behaviour as piloting submarines, sword swallowing, inventing new plastics, and organised religion as natural.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they agree on the exact nature of freewill vs. divine intervention.

Nor do they have to. That still doesn't negate the fact that there are contradictions between god's omnipotence and human's free will.

That depends on what assumptions underlie your logic process.

I prefer the logical ones.

Oh calm down. There's no need to get snippy.

That whole tangent was really important for only one thing: the Christian orthodoxy will never accept such a model of god because it would then place god in the unfortunate position of sinning.

[Bottle]

Christianity condemns the act of sexual contact between two men. It does not, however, condemn the tendencies of a homosexual male or female i.e. their lifestyle and mannerisms. God tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but with what? Not necessarily more humans.

Animals practice homosexual acts more and more in these times, but will they go to Hell? Should they know better?

Christianity does not hold that animals are capable of sin, as animals are not aware enough to understand right vs. wrong. Some Christians also hold that animals to not posses a soul.

Also, as far as I recall correctly, animals do not perform homosexual acts for pleasure, but to indicate dominance.

Quite similar to the "big bad prisoner / prison bitch" relationship.

You recall incorrectly.

Bottlenose dolphins, for example, do not form life-long heterosexual pair bonds, but they are known to form life-long "gay" pair bonds. "Gay couples" will help one another hunt, defend, or even seek out a mate when it comes time for them to briefly contact a female in order to pass on their genetic material.

Male giraffes engage in "necking" (har har, but it's actually the term for it!) and mutual sexual stimulation quite often. In fact, "gay sex" is more common among male giraffe than "heterosexual sex." Males court each other and caress each other before showing mounting behavior, quite different from the dominance rituals in that species.

Among Asiatic elephants, as well, there is usually physical affection such as kissing and caressing before homosexual mounting. Though heterosexual courtships and matings are fleeting in these elephants, males may form "gay partnerships" which last for years.

About a quarter of black swans are "gay", and will even steal nests or form temporary three-somes with a female until she lays eggs and gets driven from the nest so that the two males can rear the offspring.

And, of course, our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos, are notorious for their sexual behaviors! Female-female sexual intercourse is the most common form of sex in that species, though male-female, male-male, and group sex are all quite common. Far from being used for dominance, the bonobos tend to use sex for the opposite purpose...to diffuse tense social situations and prevent fights for dominance. For example, normally if you bring some food to a group of monkeys, there will be agitation and even fighting as the monkeys try to sort out who gets how much food. However, bonobos will have an orgy instead. They have a bunch of sex so that everyone feels happy and calm, and then they share out the food while they're all in a very nice mood.

[Ascon]

Fine. If we discuss what is natural for humans, as opposed to artifical, then they are inconsistent in that they are using a definition of natural that somehow excludes homosexuality but still encompasses such behaviour as piloting submarines, sword swallowing, inventing new plastics, and organised religion as natural.

I'm not sure about that. Is building a submarine natural for humans? I suppose it is, if it's natural for beavers to build dams or spiders to build webs. You have to nail down your definition of natural before it can be used in a discussion like this.

Nor do they have to. That still doesn't negate the fact that there are contradictions between god's omnipotence and human's free will.

Why? Just because God can do a thing doesn't mean He must, or that it would even be the right thing.

I prefer the logical ones.

They'd say the same thing.

That whole tangent was really important for only one thing: the Christian orthodoxy will never accept such a model of god because it would then place god in the unfortunate position of sinning.

I'm not sure why that is.

And what's "Christian Orthodoxy" anymore? Whichever flavor happens to be in the majority? Whichever denomination claims to have the most ancient source? Whoever's copy of the Bible is oldest?