Compelled to change?

Originally posted by vistesd
Personally, I don’t view homosexuality as sinful (even Biblically, reading carefully the Hebrew and Greek texts, which I have argued before).

Nevertheless, I can’t resist the opportunity to agree with both you and Rajk in a single post! 😉

Really?....How do you interpret Rom 1:26-27? or
Lev 18:22
22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
(NKJ)

...just curious...

Originally posted by whodey
In regards to sins in the Bible, it is evident as to why most things are considered a sin. For example, the command to love your neighbor as yourself and to to unto others as you would have them to unto you are pretty sound moral positions and are based with the idea that sin is simply violating the law of love. Perhaps we can both agree to this?

Then ould have done unto them. Are we in agreement thus far or have I put you to sleep once again?

Quit rambling. Do you have some argument that shows homosexual acts are categorically wrong, or not? Look, you and others are the ones who seem to think such acts are categorically wrong. Well, what informs this stance of yours; what rational thought supports it? Here's a general example: two adult persons of the same sex engage consentually, monogamously, privately in acts of sexual intimacy that they each find healthy, valuable, meaningful. What's wrong about that? Your moral guide, the Bible, is often interpreted (maybe wrongly all things considered) as suggesting that acts of this kind -- blanketly -- are abominable and that the two stand in desert of death. I mean, WTF? Are there some good reasons to think this way, or not?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Quit rambling. Do you have some argument that shows homosexual acts are categorically wrong, or not? Look, you and others are the ones who seem to think such acts are categorically wrong. Well, what informs this stance of yours; what rational thought supports it? Here's a general example: two adult persons of the same sex engage consentually, monogamo tand in desert of death. I mean, WTF? Are there some good reasons to think this way, or not?

My point thus far is to examine sins we both can agree with as being sins. Doing harm to others you would not want done to you is an example. We both understand that. However, what of those sins we do not fully understand? For example, what of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit? Why was that bad? They certainly did not seem to know why other than being told they would die if they partook. Who were they hurting by partaking of the fruit? After all, what they did in the privacy of thier own garden is nobodies busisness. They partook of the fruit in the spirit of finding out why it was a mistake and why it was bad. In effect, they found out the hard way.

As a person of faith, there are situations in which I must rely on my faith in what I believe God to have said because inevitably there will be because he knows everything and I do not. For example, I am also commanded not have sex outside the confines of marriage. Why? I can come up with reasons off the top of my head but it is more problematic stating how this violating the, "do unto others" command. Reasons I can come up with are that sex may lead to having a baby. Is raising a child in a broken home ideal? How about STD's? Would there be any STD's if people only had sex within the confines of marriage? However, are they good enough reasons for me not to engage in sex outside of marriage? Perhaps I had no reasons not to do it other than God telling me not to do it just as Adam and Eve found themselves in the garden not having reasons not to partake of the fruit other than God saying not to do it.

Having said that, in terms of homosexuality, I have some thoughts as to why God does not seem to condone it, but I am sure they probably are not enough for you. Nevertheless, I will share some of them with you. Suppose you could argue that as long as they are committed and do not have sex outside the relationship that they should be considered equals to heterosexual relationships. However, were we created this way? Did God intend for this to happen? Is he offended at same sex unions because it was never his design or intention? Also, what of having children? Are they being shortchanged because they are unable to have children? I suppose you could argue that they could adopt. However, one or both parents are getting themselves into a union where they know that they will not be the biological parent. You may not think it a big deal, that is, until your adopted child begins to ask questions about who their biological parents were. It is only natural. For me, it would be akin to intentianally having children to put them up for adoption. For me, this would be unethical as well. Adoption is simply a vehicle for making a bad situation better. It is not ideal and is not what God intended.

Don't get me wrong, I do not expect people who are not of faith to fully embrace my position. That is because part of my position resides in placing my faith in the idea that God knows what is best for me rather than me knowing what is best for me. In other words, I do not wish to partake of the fruit and find out the hard way why it is that I think he has told me not to do something. For me, I place my faith in a God that I percieve as loving and wanting the best for me. I must then embrace what he has said is best for me accordingly.

Originally posted by AProdigy
Well argued and thought out. But you only lists one of the great commandments. We are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but we are also to love God with all our heart.

Sins that involve wronging or hurting others violates the "do unto others" rule. But there are other sins that do not involve anyone else. Those sins are ones that hu ...[text shortened]... e.

I don't want to make this too long. If I haven't made my point, I can elaborate...

No arguement here. I was merely trying to relate my morality to someone who does not even believe that there is a God. There is common ground in terms of how we treat others but in terms of how we treat God how can you argue this if they do not even believe he exists?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Quit rambling. Do you have some argument that shows homosexual acts are categorically wrong, or not? Look, you and others are the ones who seem to think such acts are categorically wrong. Well, what informs this stance of yours; what rational thought supports it? Here's a general example: two adult persons of the same sex engage consentually, monogamo ...[text shortened]... tand in desert of death. I mean, WTF? Are there some good reasons to think this way, or not?

The sad fact is there is no reason to think this way. Science is starting to show that homosexuality is more akin to a biological phenomena thrust upon individuals by the nature of their brains rather than choice. The church is taking a long time to catch up just like it took a long time to partially embrace the idea of evolution. The Bible got it wrong , they did not know what we now know. Any Christian who tries to rationally defend this position is doomed to fail in the long term. The battle is not about sexuality it's about dogma versus truth.

Originally posted by whodey
My point thus far is to examine sins we both can agree with as being sins. Doing harm to others you would not want done to you is an example. We both understand that. However, what of those sins we do not fully understand? For example, what of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit? Why was that bad? They certainly did not seem to know why other than being ...[text shortened]... wanting the best for me. I must then embrace what he has said is best for me accordingly.

Good post...well put...If I may add, God's arch enemy, satan, always comes back with the counterfeit. God designs man/woman, satan counters with man/man or woman/woman. God has Son, the Christ, satan will counter with anti Christ. God says do not eat, satan says eat, and so on....🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
The sad fact is there is no reason to think this way. Science is starting to show that homosexuality is more akin to a biological phenomena thrust upon individuals by the nature of their brains rather than choice. The church is taking a long time to catch up just like it took a long time to partially embrace the idea of evolution. The Bible got it wron ...[text shortened]... omed to fail in the long term. The battle is not about sexuality it's about dogma versus truth.

What about the history of homosexuality in ancient Greece? According to Wiki it was a cultural norm in fact. Are we to assume that those in ancient Greece were all inclined genetically to engage in such behavior? According to Wiki, sexual behavoir had more to do with social status than gender. Those who were the "penetrators" were supposed to be socially higher in stature compared to the "penetrated". For example, males were seen as the dominant sex in ancient Greece. Therefore, those who were socially inferior, such as women, foreingers, prostitutes, male adolescents, were socially fair game for such adult males, however, to be "penetrated" by an inferior was problematic to say the least. Such man/boy relationships were seen by many to be praised for contributing to such things as population control and such. In Sparta, it was said that women who engaged in sexual activity with their husbands for the first time would dress as a young boy in order to help "convert" their husbands to heterosexual activity.

You may argue that this is more about pedophelia than homosexual conduct. However, age was only important in terms of showing social superiority. For example, you may have a 50 year old man with a 20 year old man. Such encounters were socially acceptable and practiced.

Not much is talked about in ancient Greek society in terms of lesbianism. However, I find it odd, for example, that certain populations seem to engage in lesbianism at a higher rate than others. For example, I have heard that strippers engage in lesbian type activities at a much higher rate than other segments of the population. Why? I think it has to do with increaed sexual activity in general. A greater focus on ones sexual prowess I think increases the likelyhood for experimentation.

I am not denying here that sexual orientation may be influence by genetic factors. However, to ignore social norms and promiscouis activity as being contributing factors as well is niave in my opinion. There is no question in my mind that choice is a very important factor. To what degree is speculative, however, just becuase one is sexually inclined to do certain activity in no way means they must engage in that activity. For example, I know of many males who say they cannot just limit their sexual appeitite to just one woman. Is it then wrong to sequester such an appetite? Can he help himself? Has his genetics wired him a slave to acting out such behavior?

Originally posted by whodey
What about the history of homosexuality in ancient Greece? According to Wiki it was a cultural norm in fact. Are we to assume that those in ancient Greece were all inclined genetically to engage in such behavior? According to Wiki, sexual behavoir had more to do with social status than gender. Those who were the "penetrators" were supposed to be socially ...[text shortened]... ? Can he help himself? Has his genetics wired him a slave to acting out such behavior?

You seem to lack even a basic grasp of this issue. One can look at sexual orientation as having two basic groups: A) Those born with an attraction to the opposite gender B) Those born with an attraction to the same gender. This is not a matter of "choice".

However, I believe you are correct in your assertion that lust and/or societal pressure can drive someone to engage in promiscuity and even to engage in sexual activity outside of one's natural group. I believe that these activities are what the scriptures deem sin.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to lack even a basic grasp of this issue. One can look at sexual orientation as having two basic groups: A) Those born with an attraction to the opposite gender B) Those born with an attraction to the same gender. This is not a matter of "choice".

However, I believe you are correct in your assertion that lust and/or societal pressure can driv ...[text shortened]... ide of one's natural group. I believe that these activities are what the scriptures deem sin.

I will agree that one has little control over who one is attracted to, or at least, initially. However, what one does with this attraction is another matter altogether. For example, some people are attracted to children. Should they then permitted to engage in pedophila? Another scenerio is the married man. Being a heterosexual they will continue to be attracted to members of the opporsite sex. Is this wrong? No, but what they do with their attraction could be.

There is also a saying that comes to mind which is men learn to love women they are attracted to and women learn to be attracted to men they love. Do you think there is any truth to this? Is this possible? I think we have greater control over who and what we are attracted to other than mere genetics. For example, there have been people I have been attracted to initially, but later after getting to know them that attraction vanishes altogether. Also, people that I was not initially attracted to I have later become attracted to after getting to know them. I think mode of attraction is far more complicated than we give it credit for.

Originally posted by whodey
I will agree that one has little control over who one is attracted to, or at least, initially. However, what one does with this attraction is another matter altogether. For example, some people are attracted to children. Should they then permitted to engage in pedophila? Another scenerio is the married man. Being a heterosexual they will continue to be a ...[text shortened]... ng to know them. I think mode of attraction is far more complicated than we give it credit for.

I'm sorry, but your examples only betray the depth of prejudice and ignorance you have with this issue. Pedophelia betrays the innocence of children. It's a completely different issue. Infidelity betrays the trust given by one's partner. It's a completely different issue. Attraction to a given individual can change as one gets to understand that individual better. It's a completely different issue.

Homosexuals can no more change their sexual orientation than heterosexuals can.

Can you not understand that homosexuals can have mutually loving and caring relationships that are everything that heterosexual relationships can be?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Really?....How do you interpret Rom 1:26-27? or
Lev 18:22
22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
(NKJ)

...just curious...

Summary here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65214&page=6

_______________________________

The English word abomination has the root meaning of “bad omen.” An abomination is anything considered abhorrent, disgusting, loathsome. Moral wickedness can be abomination, but abomination is not necessarily moral wickedness.

The word in the OT refers to anything distasteful (especially to God), including unclean sacrifices, idolatry, eating unclean foods, arrogance...

When all foods were declared clean in the NT, what was formerly viewed as abominable was declared to be no longer an abomination.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm sorry, but your examples only betray the depth of prejudice and ignorance you have with this issue. Pedophelia betrays the innocence of children. It's a completely different issue. Infidelity betrays the trust given by one's partner. It's a completely different issue. Attraction to a given individual can change as one gets to understand that individua loving and caring relationships that are everything that heterosexual relationships can be?

So basically anything geos so long as the relationships in question are mutually loving? How about swingers? Is this OK so long as the relationships in question are mutally loving? How about sex before marriage, is this OK so long as the relationship is mutally loving?

I think your view is upheld by most people who are not of faith. Gerenally, morality is defined by what I deem right in my own eyes or what I reason in my mind as being moral. For example, what do you think of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? Others have suggested that his willingness to go through with this as commanded by God to have been a moral failing. After all, what good could come from it? In fact, reasoning only leads one to come to the conclusion that it is morally reprehensible to do so, yet God asked him to do it. Would you say that Abraham failed morally as well for being willing to go through with what God had asked him? After all, how would this act have been mutually loving?

As far as attraction goes, however, you are attracted to what you are attracted to whether it be "wrong" in your eyes or not. That is all I am pointing out as well as the need to be mindful of how one acts on such attractions. One need not act on such urges and, in fact, we have greater control over such urges that we give ourselves credit for. In fact, I think we can change who or what we are attracted to by various means.

Just because I have an attraction in no way means I should act on it or am morally correct to act on it, that is all I am trying to say. I am not an animal.

Originally posted by whodey
So basically anything geos so long as the relationships in question are mutually loving? How about swingers? Is this OK so long as the relationships in question are mutally loving? How about sex before marriage, is this OK so long as the relationship is mutally loving?

I think your view is upheld by most people who are not of faith. Gerenally, morality ...[text shortened]... on it or am morally correct to act on it, that is all I am trying to say. I am not an animal.

Who said "anything geos so long as the relationships in question are mutually loving"?

Who said "morality is defined by what I deem right in my own eyes or what I reason in my mind as being moral"?

Do you even attempt to read and comprehend anything that anyone posts? Or do you just like going off on rants? Yet another indication of the level of your pride and arrogance. You really need to get a clue. There are plenty of Christians that have outgrown the prejudicial and ignorant views that you hold. Perhaps it's time you grew in your spirituality and did likewise. Perhaps it's time you got in touch with the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by whodey
For example, what do you think of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? Others have suggested that his willingness to go through with this as commanded by God to have been a moral failing. After all, what good could come from it? In fact, reasoning only leads one to come to the conclusion that it is morally reprehensible to do so, yet God asked him t ...[text shortened]... o through with what God had asked him? After all, how would this act have been mutually loving?

A key, I think, to the whole story is in that it is ha elohim (literally, “the gods,” although this plural form also refers to God) who first speak(s) to Abraham and leads him to the place of sacrifice. There it is a messenger (or message) from YHVH that he hears, telling him not to lay a hand on the boy. Abraham listened to the second voice, and did not withhold his son from YHVH—by letting him live, and not sacrificing him to ha elohim.

The only difficult verse is 22:12—He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God (elohim), since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." However, that phrase “from me” does not occur in the Hebrew.

YHVH acknowledges Abraham’s fear of elohim, but corrects his understanding of sacrifice, turning it from death to life.

The author of Hebrews suggests that Abraham believed in the resurrection of the dead, and so was unafraid to kill Isaac:

>>Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

However, this too could be taken to refer to Abraham’s “offering up” of Isaac to YHVH in life. That’s probably a stretch: but that “figuratively speaking” line suggests that author of Hebrews might be making a stretch too, in his “midrash” on the story. After all, YHVH could’ve performed the miracle of resurrection right there, if that had been the message he wanted to deliver to Abraham.

There is no reason to assume that James (2:21-23) is referencing anything but the story with the phrase “when he offered his son Isaac on the altar.”

________________________________

I am not, of course, denying that a strict following of the author of Hebrews in interpreting the story cannot simply be dismissed. It is an interpretation cast within a particular theological viewpoint. But I think that it over-simplifies the richness of the original.

In a cultural context where tribal chieftains might be expected to sacrifice their first-born “to the gods,” surely Abraham’s willingness to listen to that second voice, allowing it to override the original order, can be taken to entail at least as much faith. Making a sacrifice (making holy or sacred) or offering to life is surely no less than making a sacrifice to death...

Originally posted by whodey
What about the history of homosexuality in ancient Greece? According to Wiki it was a cultural norm in fact. Are we to assume that those in ancient Greece were all inclined genetically to engage in such behavior? According to Wiki, sexual behavoir had more to do with social status than gender. Those who were the "penetrators" were supposed to be socially ...[text shortened]... ? Can he help himself? Has his genetics wired him a slave to acting out such behavior?

The fact that homosexuality exists as a cultural phenomenon proves little. I see no reason why it can't be biological as well. One thing I do know. I am not hetrosexual via any cultural brainwashing , I am hetrosexual because my brain responds to the female form and finds women attractive. I can't imagine how any amount of cultural influence could make me otherwise.

"In Sparta, it was said that women who engaged in sexual activity with their husbands for the first time would dress as a young boy in order to help "convert" their husbands to heterosexual activity." whodey

My guess is that if these men were actually hetrosexual then they would not have needed too much persuasion if their wives were decent looking enough. How do you think the population was kept going?

"There is no question in my mind that choice is a very important factor. To what degree is speculative, however, just becuase one is sexually inclined to do certain activity in no way means they must engage in that activity." WHODEY

....Did you choose to be hetrosexual? I certainly don't feel like it was a choice! The idea of having sex with a man wasn't on the cards , girls were a far too appealing alternative!!! Do you really struglle to maintain your hetrosexuality or are you doing what you feel comes naturally too you? For me it's no struggle at all , it's like enjoying a good curry ---offer me some dog poo to eat and I certainly won't feel like I am "choosing" the curry!! What do you say to homosexuals who feel that the idea of making love to the opposite sex makes them feel as ill as you might making love to a man?