Evangelical hypocrisy...now with even more gay sex

[spike]

Your opinion is subject to change. Breaking the rules, as posed by God, is sin.

The rules posed by God are subject to change. See Old Testament vs. New and biblical contradictions. Bigotry against homosexuals is wrong whether or not you're religious.

 

[Professur]

Bigotry against homosexuals is wrong whether or not you're religious.

Really? So why is bigotry against pedophiles or zoophiles or necrophiliacs alright then?

 

[spike]

Why is bigotry against Canadians wrong while bigotry against rapists isn't?

 

[Professur]

Exactly. So I guess bigotry isn't quite so immoral after all.

 

[MrBishop]

Why is bigotry against Canadians wrong while bigotry against rapists isn't?

Just tossing this out....hmmm....Rape is illegal? So is pedophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia.

 

[Inkara1]

So are acts of gay sex, at least in a lot of areas.

 

[Gonz]

The rules posed by God are subject to change.

If that is true, then He isn't all-seeing. all-kowing is he? Mans interpretations may change. The rules must stay the same.

Bigotry against homosexuals is wrong whether or not you're religious.

This is about actions that may or may not constitute SIN, not whether it's wrong or not, because SIN is a religious term.

 

[MrBishop]

So are acts of gay sex, at least in a lot of areas.

I'd hazard to say, that statistically speaking...more heterosexual couples engage in 'gay sex acts' such as sodomy, than actual homosexual couples.

 

[BB]

This is about actions that may or may not constitute SIN, not whether it's wrong or not, because SIN is a religious term.

there is no moral correlation between Sin and a concept of right and wrong?

... ...explain ...

*passes Gonz a heavy duty shovel*



edit** .. mind you, a clarification on distinction was what i was driving at with my question to spike ref whether or not he beleived in the concept of SIN, so i'll half allow you the religious side ...

but ...

 

[Gonz]

There can be no sin when one disregards religion so absolutely.

That is not to say there can be no right & wrong (though, without a moral basis, how can WRONG be defined?)

 

[Gonz]

I'd hazard to say, that statistically speaking...more heterosexual couples engage in 'gay sex acts' such as sodomy, than actual homosexual couples.

That's called birth contol

 

[BB]

There can be no sin when one disregards religion so absolutely.

That is not to say there can be no right & wrong (though, without a moral basis, how can WRONG be defined?)

but does he disregard religion so absolutely?

that was my question.

I'll agree without all the semantics that SIN relates to religion ... but religion is not the defining word or law on having a moral framework


.................


birth control? ...i look forward to that tv ad campaign then ... forget condoms ... try this new approach ..as recommended by the BMI !!!

 

[BeardofPants]

Actually "sin" doesn't have to be an act against God:

sin 1 |sin| noun an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law : a sin in the eyes of God | the human capacity for sin. • an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission : he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews | humorous with air like this, it's a sin not to go out.

 

[Gonz]

but does he disregard religion so absolutely?

that was my question.

I'll agree without all the semantics that SIN relates to religion ... but religion is not the defining word or law on having a moral framework

I've yet to experience his being postive towards religion so I made a rash & harsh judgement. Sue me

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law

immoral & divine, in one sentence? Sounds religious to me.

 

[BeardofPants]

Didn't say that it didn't, just that it had another definition as well.

 

[Starya]

A lot of words and expressions change meaning, or are given additional meaning over time. [sings]We'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home[/sings]

This also applies to religious terms, where they find their way into everyday speech, then also with secular meening. So, when I consider it a sin to throw away that last piece of cake...it ain't 'cause no God said so.

 

[Gotholic]

No, I am not being merely contentious. I am using my ability to discern "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" which tells me that bigotry is wrong.

I like that quote from your article. That abilty that your article refers to allows me to see how fundamentally wrong it is to engage in bigotry against anyone based on their sexual orientation, race, or religion.

Although being a "bigot" usually has a negative connotation, "bigotry" is not intrinsically wrong. As was already mentioned in this thread, it is perfectly fine to be bigoted towards murderers and pedophiles and so on and so forth.

Here is the official stance on homosexuality from the Catholic Church:

Science has not yet established the degree to which homosexual tendencies are learned or inborn. It is likely to be a combination of both factors, like alcoholism is. In the latter case, there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, but it takes a process of conditioning and experience with alchohol to develop the addiction.

Sexual drives are built into the human race biologically, but among humans sex is subject to a great deal of cognitive conditioning. Responses to particular stimuli (body shapes, facial features, hair colors, clothing) are largely learned and vary widely from individual to individual, and even from time to time in a single individual's life. This degree of cognitive involvement in sexual behavior is not found among lower life forms, whose sexual behavior is almost entirely instinctual and has few cognitive factors involved in it.

There may be genetic, hormonal, or neurological factors toward which produce a predisposition toward homosexual desires, but some degree of learning and conditioned response is almost certainly involved (as in human sexuality generally). Because of this ambiguity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuality's "psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" (CCC 2357).

It is important to realize that homosexuals do not have complete, voluntary control over their desires. Of course, they have control over their actions, as do heterosexuals. After a person has been conditioned to homosexual responses, it is impossible to simply wish away the desires, just as it is impossible for an alcoholic to wish away his desire to be drunk. (It should be noted that heterosexuals do not have complete control over their desires either.)

Homosexuals also do not make a conscious choice to have homosexual tendencies. Nobody says, "I think I'll become a homosexual!" any more than anyone says, "I think I'll become an alcoholic!" Homosexual desires may come about as a result of certain choices the individual makes (such as thinking about members of the same sex in a certain way or engaging in homosexual behavior), just as alcoholic desires may come about as the result of certain choices the individual has made (such as frequently choosing to get drunk), but virtually no one consciously chooses to become a homosexual or an alchoholic as a goal and then intentionally cultivates the corresponding desires.

For this reason, the Catechism states, "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. The persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (CCC 2358).

While they may not choose their desires, homosexuals do have the ability to choose whether they act on those desires, just as an alcholic has the choice of whether to act on his desire to get drunk and just as a heterosexual has the choice of acting on his desires. For this reason, the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, traditions has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law . . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved . . . . Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357, 2359).

Regarding God's involvement in the origin of homosexuality: He is not the source of such temptations, just as he is not the source of temptation in general: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one" (Jas. 1:13). Adam is the source of the temptations we feel. It is because of his sin that we have inherited a corrupt nature (Rom. 5:19).

Source

You want to call homosexuality a disorder and a sin. I believe it's neither but that's like calling a deaf man a demon. Either it's an affliction that is not your fault or it's choice to do something horrible on purpose. You want it both ways when it's really neither.

There is no conclusive evidence that proves homosexuality is inborn.

The deaf man example is off base. Regardless, we are talking about the Christian perspective of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is immoral is trivial. The Bible says it is and that is what Christians go by.

I have quite a few lesbian and gay friends and they are great people. I work with a lesbian who is one of the nicest people you could meet. For anyone to damn them or discriminate against them for loving someone that loves them back is insane. Anyone who does that is the one with the mental disorder.

Some pedophiles could be some of the nicest people you could meet too. Whether or not a person is seen through man's eyes as "nice" or "righteous" does not negate what God sees through His eyes.

It is explicit in the Bible that God does not condone homosexual behavior. It has always been understood that way even before Christianity emerged. It is also consistent throughout the New Testament.

It is inconsequential whether or not you condone homosexuality. I do not go by the book of spike.

Ok, most? Some are, but you choose to ignore them?

No, but I feel it is pointless in looking them up to make sure I give the correct way to interpret them for you. But I will say that you are looking at them superficially.

I will give an example...

In the book of Revelations, there is a phrase that roughly says that "no one is to add or take away from this book" - many Christians falsely interpret this as the Bible. However, the Bible was not put together at the time Revelations was written. Thus, that phrase was restricted to the book of Revelations itself - this is something to keep in mind as you try to interpret.

By the way, for roughly 2,000 years Christians have understood that they are not subjected to the Old Law, e.g., they do not need to get circumcised or abide by the dietary laws. Most of this you can understand by reading the book of Acts.

Your sources interpretation has different rules just for Jews? That kind of assumes there's nothing wrong with not even considering being catholic doesn't it?

The Jews had a special covenant with God, which is why they had to get circumcised - this is one example that Jews had to do things differently apart from the Gentiles.

So only Jews have to observe the following rules?

Jewish "Priests" must not "make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard." 21:5

Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

Anyone with a "flat nose, or any thing superfluous" must stay away from the altar of God. 21:18

A man with damaged testicles must not "come nigh to offer the bread of his God." 21:20

I'm almost positive a Gentile could not even be near the altar of God. Again, you have to look at it in context.

Gentiles did not have to abide by the various Mosaic Laws such as circumcision - ask any orthodox Jew.

Okay spike....You do remember that The Old Testament and The New Testament are seperate for a reason? Jesus preformed a sort of church reform. He washed away the adherence to the Old laws and brought about (or tried to) a new way. All that man made silliness about who could do what was abolished - for Christians anyway...one could argue that homosexuality could be thrown in with the rest of those laws. I do NOT know if homosexuality was addressed by Jesus or at all in the new testament.

1. God created the Old Law, not man.

2. Jesus fulfilled the law and nailed it to the cross. He "canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14)

3. Christ did not need to mention about homosexuality. Homosexuality can not be thrown out because it is part of the Natural Law and is a moral requirement. Even His disciples understood this.

 

[tonksy]

As far as I know the only proof that God created the old laws is that some man wrote it down in the bible...there were no stone tablets like with the commandments
I am sorry, Goth...but as far as my believe is concerned if it didn't come directly from God or out of Jesus's mouth it is suspect to me.

 

[spike]

Although being a "bigot" usually has a negative connotation, "bigotry" is not intrinsically wrong. As was already mentioned in this thread, it is perfectly fine to be bigoted towards murderers and pedophiles and so on and so forth.

Right, it's not fine to be bigoted against people for there race, religion, sexual orientation, flat noses, or handicaps though.

Here is the official stance on homosexuality from the Catholic Church:

Their stance is wrong and ridiculous.

There is no conclusive evidence that proves homosexuality is inborn.

Then you have no basis for calling it a disorder do you?

The deaf man example is off base. Regardless, we are talking about the Christian perspective of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is immoral is trivial. The Bible says it is and that is what Christians go by.

Only in the old testament which christians don't have to abide by.

Some pedophiles could be some of the nicest people you could meet too. Whether or not a person is seen through man's eyes as "nice" or "righteous" does not negate what God sees through His eyes.

While my friends who are homesexuals have done nothing wrong, anyone who condones bigotry against them has.

It is explicit in the Bible that God does not condone homosexual behavior. It has always been understood that way even before Christianity emerged. It is also consistent throughout the New Testament.

Let's see the New Testament examples?

By the way, for roughly 2,000 years Christians have understood that they are not subjected to the Old Law, e.g., they do not need to get circumcised or abide by the dietary laws. Most of this you can understand by reading the book of Acts.

The Jews had a special covenant with God, which is why they had to get circumcised - this is one example that Jews had to do things differently apart from the Gentiles.


I'm almost positive a Gentile could not even be near the altar of God. Again, you have to look at it in context.

Gentiles did not have to abide by the various Mosaic Laws such as circumcision - ask any orthodox Jew.

Ridiculous rules for Jews only? Not a fair and just view of God.

3. Christ did not need to mention about homosexuality. Homosexuality can not be thrown out because it is part of the Natural Law and is a moral requirement. Even His disciples understood this.

You define natural law as "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" since any rational creature should be able to discern that two lesbians that love each other aren't hurting anybody and are doing nothing wrong.

Therefore natural law says that homosexuality is fine.

 

[Gotholic]

As far as I know the only proof that God created the old laws is that some man wrote it down in the bible...there were no stone tablets like with the commandments
I am sorry, Goth...but as far as my believe is concerned if it didn't come directly from God or out of Jesus's mouth it is suspect to me.

tonks, there really is no proof that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. As Christians, we accept in good faith that the Bible is without error to what it teaches because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The moment you cast doubt that one book of the Bible was written through man's imagination then doubt can be brought upon the whole Bible. You cannot pick and choose to have it both ways - because really your discernment is arbitrary.

Right, it's not fine to be bigoted against people for there race, religion, sexual orientation, flat noses, or handicaps though.

spike, "bigoted" is not working here. People are bigoted to a degree.

The Catholic Church and other churches are bigoted in regards to not allowing anyone one from other faiths to be a member of the clergy unless they convert. The U.S. military is bigoted since some with certain handicaps cannot join.

Their stance is wrong and ridiculous.

Thanks for your insight.

Then you have no basis for calling it a disorder do you?

The Bible defines it as a disorder. If you want to discuss how people become homosexuals or why some people think it is a disorder without the theological implications then create a thread for it.

Only in the old testament which christians don't have to abide by.

The Old Testament is not cast aside. Certain laws that are not part of the moral requirement were nailed to the cross.

While my friends who are homesexuals have done nothing wrong, anyone who condones bigotry against them has.

Hey, I'm not trying to convert you. Believe whatever you want.

Let's see the New Testament examples?

I think one sums it up well...

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Ridiculous rules for Jews only? Not a fair and just view of God.

You criticize that which you do not understand.

You define natural law as "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" since any rational creature should be able to discern that two lesbians that love each other aren't hurting anybody and are doing nothing wrong.

Therefore natural law says that homosexuality is fine.

I did not define it. You just quoted that one part of the article and ignored everything else that it pertained to.

Natural Law states that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman and vice versa - not a beast or someone of the same sex.