Sexuality

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I see your point. Some of the other sins named, particularly in the OT, are difficult to understand. Why was it so bad for Noah's son to see him passed out drunk & naked? Why was Onan cut down for "spilling his seed" where he did? And then there's the whole thing in the NT about "sins of omission". I've asked my pastor several times why we are held ac ...[text shortened]... r things we do that we aren't even aware are sins!

I will have to cogitate further...

I think there are basically some sins that are concerned with deep issues of human behaviour , love and compassion etc as well as the state of our hearts bodies and minds and there are other sins that seem to be connected with religiosity and cultural rules.

The problem I have is that some Christians seem to treat things superficially. If it said in the Bible that wearing red shoes on a weds. was a sin some of them would take it literally and never question why.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No doubt there may be genetic explanations for promiscuity, bisexuality, pedophilia, sexual aggression (such as rape) and whatever.--------conrau---------------

And some of the above are harmful to others and some may not be. If a man has pedophile tendencies then I fully support the idea that he should train himself to reel in these tendencies. The ...[text shortened]... in why a committed ,loving homosexual relationship is harnful. One could argue it is beneficial.

And some of the above are harmful to others and some may not be. If a man has pedophile tendencies then I fully support the idea that he should train himself to reel in these tendencies. The reason for this is because he will harm others and ultimately himself if he does not.

Possibly. But do remember that your original argument was that since a homosexual orientation might have genetic antecedents, homosexual relations must be moral. That argument is clearly dead.

Originally posted by knightmeister

Which Christians here are prepared to open their minds to the uncomfortable truth about sexuality?

Slightly off topic, but when is the truth ever a net source of discomfort? Being aware that something is really true is so rare and special that that knowledge always makes up for the discomfort that the content of the truth might cause.

Originally posted by divegeester
Furthing this thought:

Righteousness is not dependant on it's interpretation nor the approval of either the beholder or its exponent; it is dependent on faith and obedience; Abraham being the obvious example.

Similarly unrightousness is not dependant on our comprehension of it. Ir can be as inocuous as disobedience to a simple command of God, or ...[text shortened]... no apparent harm to us we may feel we are right to challenge God's judgement in the matter.

Your

judgement in the matter
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Your

judgement in the matter
😵

Accepted of course. It's a difficult topic to debate in this forum outside of personal opinion or biblical viewpoint.

I find it comforting to consider what Jesus response would have been if he met each of us in our sin. I would hope he would be as e was with the adulteress ready to be stoned.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]And some of the above are harmful to others and some may not be. If a man has pedophile tendencies then I fully support the idea that he should train himself to reel in these tendencies. The reason for this is because he will harm others and ultimately himself if he does not.

Possibly. But do remember that your original argument was that since a ...[text shortened]... ght have genetic antecedents, homosexual relations must be moral. That argument is clearly dead.[/b]

I don't mean to sound impatient but I do wish people would really start to think things through better.

My argument is not to say that if homosexual tendencies are biologically based then that makes them neccessarily moral. My argument is that if homosexual tendencies are biological then they can hardly be called lifestyle choices or behavioural or developmental. If a biological urge exists then it has to shown to be immoral in order for it to be subverted.

I then go from that point to say that once it is established that a sexual orientation is hardwired from birth then on what moral grounds might we ask such an individual to fight against what is for them their "nature".

Given the immense agonising and individual pain involved in trying to get homosexuals to conform to Christian / societal norms it seems more moral to just let them be and accept their sexuality just for what it is. This would avoid much pain and many suicides.

The onus is actually on Christianity to show that there IS a moral case for taking such a rigid stand against homosexuality. At the moment all it seems to be able to do is say "it's a sin because the Bible says it's so" - that is just not good enough in our modern world. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Accepted of course. It's a difficult topic to debate in this forum outside of personal opinion or biblical viewpoint.

I find it comforting to consider what Jesus response would have been if he met each of us in our sin. I would hope he would be as e was with the adulteress ready to be stoned.

Every opinion is personal, biblical opinion included

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't mean to sound impatient but I do wish people would really start to think things through better.

My argument is not to say that if homosexual tendencies are biologically based then that makes them neccessarily moral. My argument is that if homosexual tendencies are biological then they can hardly be called lifestyle choices or behavioural or ...[text shortened]... Bible says it's so" - that is just not good enough in our modern world. I don't buy it.

My argument is not to say that if homosexual tendencies are biologically based then that makes them neccessarily moral. My argument is that if homosexual tendencies are biological then they can hardly be called lifestyle choices or behavioural or developmental.

May I remind you of these choice words of yours: "You would also have to accept that it would be cruel and perverse to label such a sexuality as "sin" given the fact that such a sexuality stems from foetal development." Perhaps you ought to think things through better. You are clearly unable to commit yourself to one argument.

If a biological urge exists then it has to shown to be immoral in order for it to be subverted.

I really have no idea what this means.

The onus is actually on Christianity to show that there IS a moral case for taking such a rigid stand against homosexuality. At the moment all it seems to be able to do is say "it's a sin because the Bible says it's so" - that is just not good enough in our modern world. I don't buy it.

Really? Actually, the major moral argument that I hear in theological circles is that from Natural Law theory, such as theology of the body. I regularly attend Catholic functions and the Bible, while an authority on moral issues, is not the exclusive source of morality. One is more likely to hear a quote from JPII than the Bible.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]My argument is not to say that if homosexual tendencies are biologically based then that makes them neccessarily moral. My argument is that if homosexual tendencies are biological then they can hardly be called lifestyle choices or behavioural or developmental.

May I remind you of these choice words of yours: "You would also have to accept that i lusive source of morality. One is more likely to hear a quote from JPII than the Bible.[/b]

Ok , simplification time. Unless a biological urge or condition can be shown to be harmful it seems silly just to label it as sinful purely for the sake of doing so with no good reason.

If a biological urge exists ( eg the urge to make love with the same sex) then why call it a sin and an abomination for no apparent reason except for the fact that it says so in the Bible.

I can understand why paedophilia might be labelled an abomination because it really hurts people , but consenting , meaningful sex between a gay couple? Have I missed something?

No-one , not once has been able to explain what exactly is abominable about it - not you , not whodey , not anyone -- until one of you can explain why it is an abomination then I feel justified in questioning this silly piece of theology that seems to me to be based on nothing more than homophobia.

I don't know why the church clings so dearly to this (actually I do really) - it's not as if the fabric of life will come apart if they just accept that gay people are gay because of natural causes and they are free to express their sexuality in a private , non-harmful manner.

What if some people aren't convinced that a specific "biological urge" is harmful, but others are? NAMBLA people would argue that there's nothing harmful about having sex with kids. I can even imagine that there are some people who might find rape to be not only benign, but even stimulating. And of coourse there are those "victimless crimes" of gambling and prostitution--but someone can always find a loophole and show that in fact, they aren't victimless--others can be hurt by these actions after all.
I don't have the answer to what should and shouldn't be considered a sin, but I do know that "biological urge" is not an acceptable reason for calling something moral (or benign); whether it is harmful or not is incidental.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]My argument is not to say that if homosexual tendencies are biologically based then that makes them neccessarily moral. My argument is that if homosexual tendencies are biological then they can hardly be called lifestyle choices or behavioural or developmental.

May I remind you of these choice words of yours: "You would also have to accept that i lusive source of morality. One is more likely to hear a quote from JPII than the Bible.[/b]

Where do unisexuals fit into the "natural law"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...If a biological urge exists ( eg the urge to make love with the same sex) then why call it a sin and an abomination for no apparent reason except for the fact that it says so in the Bible. ....

Therefore God was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
And He lacked modern advanced scientific knowledge which proves that homosexuality is a biological urge.

Or maybe homosexuality is a biological urge only in the last 2 decades (which makes it ok), and 4000 years ago it was just a disgusting abomination and God was right.

Which is it.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Therefore God was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
And He lacked modern advanced scientific knowledge which proves that homosexuality is a biological urge.

Or maybe homosexuality is a biological urge only in the last 2 decades (which makes it ok), and 4000 years ago it was just a disgusting abomination and God was right.

Which is it.

Alas!

For, Raj my friend, this miserable atheist had the feeling that whatever he does in privecy, in his house, has just to do with his personal taste and that is nobody else's ("god" included) business
😵

BTW, Merry Christmas my bad!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
What if some people aren't convinced that a specific "biological urge" is harmful, but others are? NAMBLA people would argue that there's nothing harmful about having sex with kids. I can even imagine that there are some people who might find rape to be not only benign, but even stimulating. And of coourse there are those "victimless crimes" of gambling ...[text shortened]... for calling something moral (or benign); whether it is harmful or not is incidental.

In the cases you describe the only rational thing to do would be to have an honest debate about it and consider what the issues are for and against.

Most of us feel that a big issue is whether the act takes place between two consenting adults who are well informed and whether it is conducted in a mature and loving manner that promotes respect for human beings - NAMBLA and those who promote rape would find it hard to make such a case whereas I think I could make a case for mature homosexual relationships.

Something being a biological urge does not make it right but neither does it make it wrong. If homosexuality is proven to be a biological urge similar in intensity to heterosexuality then on what grounds do we prohibit such acts if we cannot show them to be demonstrably harmful?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Therefore God was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
And He lacked modern advanced scientific knowledge which proves that homosexuality is a biological urge.

Or maybe homosexuality is a biological urge only in the last 2 decades (which makes it ok), and 4000 years ago it was just a disgusting abomination and God was right.

Which is it.

Did God destroy Sodom and Gomorah purely due to homosexuality?