A theological question occurred to me over the weekend with regards to homosexuality, one intriguing enough to me that I'm overruling my better judgment and starting a thread that could very well become problematic. Here goes.
My understanding of the Christian view of the world is that sin is universal and inevitable. I think this is even true of denominations that don't go in for Original Sin. Sin being universal and inevitable, human beings are incapable of being perfect. Thus, the only path to Heaven is through Christ. Christ accepts the burden of our sins onto himself and thus washes us clean. This being the case, then, would a homosexual person--that is, a person who has homosexual sex--who accepts Christ as his personal savior and is an otherwise good person go to Hell? If so, why is this hypothetical person's homosexuality less forgivable than his other sins? Or, since we all sin, why would it be less forgivable than the sins of all other people?
[Still not sure this thread is a good idea, but I really want to know.]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Note – I don’t think homosexuality is a sin, nor that homosexual sex is, by definition, or in all cases, sinful.
But for those who do the difference is one of repentance and asking for forgiveness. Any sin can be forgiven, but if you don’t believe that something is a sin you don’t repent of it, have any intention of stopping it, or ask forgiveness for it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well...
Part of accepting Christ is denouncing your sins and changing. Everyone is imperfect, but in order for the sacrifice of Christ to work, you have to repent and do all you can to follow him. You can't deliberately continue to sin and still claim you are repenting.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
As a Catholic, I have to regurtitate the fact that homosexual relationships are sin for the simple reason that (like all hetero and sexual relationships that involve birth control) the aim of sex is to produce children, and two men or two women making love to one another (or, indeed, a man and a woman using condoms or the pill or any other contraceptive) is a sin because no child is produced.
As a person, I don't believe that. In my opinion, love is love is love, no matter what the outside is, and the line "I knew you in the womb" also means that "I knew who you ultimately would be". No bi or gay people that I know *CHOOSE* the lifestyle--it's just another aspect of who they are. So they like the same sex--who freakin' cares? As long as they don't delve into personal aspects unasked in front of me, or hit on me repeatedly when I have asked them not to (like one person I knew used to), I really don't have any problem with it.
On another vein, if you're a good person, period, I think you will achieve whatever end you wish: heaven, nirvana, nothing... Whatever you believe, whatever end you want to attain, you shall recieve if you are a good person.
So, in short, yes. All gays go to heaven. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Here's the important part...from my perspective.
Christ didn't make their sins, "non sins" or "acceptable".
When a sinner came to Christ and admitted they were wrong, he said:
"Thy sins are forgiven thee. (and here's the catch) Go thy way and sin no more."
We all make mistakes. We need to awknowledge we make the mistakes, that we are wrong, ask forgiveness, and then TRY not to do the same thing again.
That's where the problem lies with any sin.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
And what is sin for one to commit, may not be sin for another.
A person may have to steal for their family to eat.
Early Christians may have had to bow a knee to Roman dieties on their way to their own worship services to keep away from suspicious eyes.
Abraham slept with his maidservant before his wife was blessed.
Peter denied Christ three times before the crucifiction.
Paul persecuted the early Christians before becoming one of the faith's staunchest supporters.
I believe we will be confronted with the sins we enacted as seen by God's eyes, and our repentance and Christ's blood will pay the debt if we ask in all humility and earnestness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with that, but isn't there more than a little hypocrisy in asking for forgiveness without having intention of quitting what you are asking for forgiveness for?
I think this is a controversial topic, but because it's an emotional subject and not because the answer to the question is unclear.
[ October 25, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Begging for forgiveness without changing isn't asking for forgiveness, it's asking for acceptance of the action as no longer considered a sin.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
But is sin in the eye of the beholder or the one who commits it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As long as we are in the realm of Christianity and forgiveness, it's up to the Lord.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ditto Kath. Who is to dictate sin? An omniscient God, or a limited Man?
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I think you're missing my point.
If God created someone gay, then their homosexuality is not a sin, no matter what it might appear like to someone else.
By the same token, though, if you weren't created gay and engaged in homosexual behaviour in an adulterous manner, that would pretty much be a sin, wouldn't it?
If Joe has been gay since the day he was born, his relationship with his partner isn't necessarily a sin. However, if the Governor of New Jersey has a homosexual relationship, while he is married and has children -- committing adultery and sodomy, well, that's no too difficult to push into the category of being "wrong."
A policeman may have to kill a gun wielding lunatic in the line of duty, that's not a sin if there was no other choice. However, the person who just casually swerves off the road to take out an unsuspecting drifter who is hitch-hiking -- sin.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: If God created someone gay, then their homosexuality is not a sin, no matter what it might appear like to someone else.
But you are forgetting that God didn't create anyone "Gay". He created a "Perfect Man" that of his own choice became "imperfect".
Hence the human race is "imperfect". Some of us are so imperfect that we get mad at someone to the point we want to kill them. That's human and animal nature. That doesn't mean that acting on those natural impulses and killing is acceptable.
The same with sexual urges. You may be attracted to children, but that doesn't mean you should give in to those attractions.
The jury is still out on "Gays are born that way" and there's alot of evidence both for and against.
It all boils down to controlling your body instead of allowing your body to control you.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Sin is in the intent. It also takes knowledge for a sin to be a sin. You have to know what you are doing is wrong and then do it anyway. Repentance is a process, not an action. Some people have more difficulty turning from that which holds them down than other people. And that is the true definition of a sin. It's something that keeps a person from growing spiritually. It's something that holds you back and keeps you from being what you could be. I believe homesexuality is something that can be overcome, but I imagine it is very dificult to do so. So dificult that most who try give up and just accept it as who they are, rather than continuing to try. That's what repentance is. It's always trying to be better than you are. If at some point in your life, you feel that something is not correct, or if you join a religion or begin to believe in something that doesn't accept your way of life, and if you feel that is right, it is better to strive to meet that ideal rather than just accept who you are and try to change the ideal to fit you. Even if you fail at every attempt, you just have to keep trying. "There's no such thing as a failure who keeps trying, coasting at the bottom is the only disgrace" - "Just Wait", Blues Traveler (My favorite song)
That's my opinion on the matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Someone's homosexuality is not a sin, no matter what.
Some faiths believe that homosexual actions (indeed, any sexual actions outside a traditional man/woman marriage) are always sinful.
As Kat said, it's ultimately up to God whether a person's actions are sinful. It's not in the eye of the beholder.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Keep in mind, you have to remember which faith you're dealing with in evaluating this position.
We don't know which faith, if any, God really endorses (insert standard disclaimer here) and so we cannot really hope to understand what (S)He is really hoping to accomplish.
Is there one Absolute Truth that will show us the answers after we're done taking the test? Maybe - God, if (s)he exists, is that one Truth or so we hope and believe.
Disclaimer: I tried to be as unbiased in this thread and give a vaguely analytical summation on the topic as presented without interjecting any of my personal viewpoints so if I offended anyone, it was not my intent.
-Trevor
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There is no such thing as "the Christian view of the world." There are many many so-called Christian views.
My view, as a Christian, is that because sin is universal and ultimately unavoidable, sinning will not send you to Hell. Hell is therefore not punishment, but rather a matter of free choice - I would guess the choice to accept or reject God. And thus being homosexual cannot send you to Hell.
However, by the same logic, a sin's ability to send you to Hell is not the source of its badness.
But then again, this is also somewhat pointless because I don't believe in Hell anyway - not eternal Hell at least.
[ October 25, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I agree with that, but isn't there more than a little hypocrisy in asking for forgiveness without having intention of quitting what you are asking for forgiveness for?
Spot on.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the official LDS church view on the general subject of repentance would have to be Alma chapters 39-41 . It is a prophet explaining to his son why it isn't okay to frequent a prostitute. The son was apparently confused about how much he will be restored.
God may or may not allow some to be born homosexual- he also creates alcoholics and compulsive gamblers and little video game addicts. Even if he doesn't create them that way genetically, isn't he responsible for any other circumstances short of our moral agency? So "born gay" is moot in the nature/nurture line that I heard Buchanan stammer out a couple weeks ago.
But I don't believe in a God that created us all to be successful. He created us to be humbled and submit our agency to His will.
Another correlary would be that the church does not believe all people who commit suicide necessarily go to "hell." It is allowed that there may be circumstances beyond one's agency that could result in such a tragedy, notably biochemical mental imbalance.
I know the very comparison of suicide and homosexuality is likely to raise hackles, but we really do see the submission to sexual impulses as spiritual death.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Various views on homosexuality cause me mental fatigue. It is simply a difficult question to answer. If you see it from the perspective that homosexuality is purely a sin no matter what, you won't see the whole picture. There's a whole undercurrent of gravity, love and passion at work there that a lot of people would miss because they aren't going to read a book like Stranger at the Gate or watch the more extreme Queer as Folk or even read a mild and romantic short sweet book like Dive to see a different perspective of what it's really like to be gay....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you see it from the perspective that homosexuality is purely a sin no matter what, you won't see the whole picture.
God sometimes requires that we bear a 'thorn in our flesh.' He has promised that the grace of Christ is sufficient for the obedient-- while I cannot control my genetics, and can only control my upbringing to a certain extent, once I accept that homosexual behavior is sinful, I am responsible for quitting that behavior.
In the Christian community, this is expected of all sinners, no matter their genetics or upbringing.
It is the duty of the Christian community to love sinners of every stripe, whether or not they appear to be penitent. If that's the Big Picture you refer to, Syn, we agree. But if the Big Picture you're imagining has the word 'acceptance' in it, I'm afraid that we do not.
I agree that Christians must show empathy for sinners, and for the various burdens that all are called to bear. Through empathy, understanding, and teaching, people can be brought to a sincere repentence and thus come closer to Christ. The end goal is not Christianity's acceptance of the sinner, but the sinner's acceptance of Christ.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: because sin is universal and ultimately unavoidable, sinning will not send you to Hell. Hell is therefore not punishment, but rather a matter of free choice - I would guess the choice to accept or reject God. And thus being homosexual cannot send you to Hell.
I don't follow any of your logic.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Then do you think homosexuals should just never have sex?
Jen
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that ALL sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin.
So, yes.
[ October 26, 2004, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I don't follow any of your logic.
If sinning is unavoidable and sinning sent you to Hell then not only would everybody be in Hell (because everybody sinned) but it would also not be their fault, because you can only be at fault for things that were avoidable. That they would be in Hell for that is absurd and unfair, which makes it contradictory to the nature of God. Thus it is not sinning that sends you to hell. And thus Hell cannot be described as punishment for sins.
[ October 26, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap:
Hmm.
How do you define sin?
EDIT: Sin, in my opinion, is knowing that something is against the will of God, and yet still doing it.
[ October 26, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
What I want to know is why homosexuality is a sin. I can understand why nearly everything else would be considered a sin. Many of them, while not being bad themselves, are aspects of a negative character.
Oh and please, nobody give me the "master plan" excuse. If you want to live your life believing everything your told that's fine, but I want to hear from people who might actually have an idea why homosexuality should be sinful.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From the Mormon point of view, homosexuality is sinful because an eternal marriage can only exist between a man and woman.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I want to know is why homosexuality is a sin. I can understand why nearly everything else would be considered a sin. Many of them, while not being bad themselves, are aspects of a negative character.
Oh and please, nobody give me the "master plan" excuse. If you want to live your life believing everything your told that's fine, but I want to hear from people who might actually have an idea why homosexuality should be sinful.
From the Catholic point of view, homosexuality isn't a sin, but homosexual acts are. This is because Catholic teaching is that sex is appropriate only between two married people, and that each sex act must be one that would carry a chance of conception if both parties were fertile.
Dagonee
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I am of the opinion that it is not a sin to be a homosexual in terms of orientation, just as it is not a sin to be tempted to steal or hit someone or kill. The sin is in the act. If a person has homosexual sex, just like any other sex outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, then that is a sin.
Am I suggesting that homosexuals abstain from having homosexual sex? If they want to avoid sinning, then yes.
I've also heard the arguments that homosexuals can't help it - they're born that way. Well, the same thing has been said about murderers, child abusers, rapists, and more. I have my own set of weaknesses, as do we all. That's the way we are. Question is, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to be weak and give in? Or are we going to do our best to follow God's commands?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:How do you define sin?
EDIT: Sin, in my opinion, is knowing that something is against the will of God, and yet still doing it.
Sin is doing something against the will of God. If it were KNOWINGLY doing something against the will of God then I suspect homosexuals should have no problem because I don't think many believe their actions are against the will of God.
[ October 26, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Justifying it to yourself doesn't mean it's no longer a sin, and it doesn't erase what you once knew.
[ October 26, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It does if a sin must be knowingly done. When something is justified to you then you cannot be said to know it's wrong, even if that is just a delusion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sin is doing something against the will of God.
What are the consequences of sin?
EDIT: Sin draws us away from God. Sincere repentence draws us back. If we do not repent, we suffer spiritual death, which is Hell.
quote:If it were KNOWINGLY doing something against the will of God then I suspect homosexuals should have no problem because I don't think many believe their actions are against the will of God.
You may be right. Only God can know the true hearts of men. But He has given us directions on what He considers acceptable behaviors, and it is our responsibility to follow His commandments as best we can.
EDIT, II: That is, those of us who have learned His will have that responsability.
[ October 26, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But that doesn't make any sense. Why should gay people be consigned to a life of unhappiness, misery and some of the best aspect of human contact for something that makes no logical sense?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why should gay people be consigned to a life of unhappiness, misery and some of the best aspect of human contact for something that makes no logical sense?
[ October 26, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, sins are things which are against the will of God, and keep one away from becoming more like Him. Period. While unacted upon intentions can be sinful, intent alone isn't what makes sin sin.
When it comes to Sin, ignorance isn't bliss - BUT, I also believe that those sins acted upon that the individual truly has no idea might be considered sinful (I don't mean doesn't believe that they're sins, rather tha they had no idea that it could possibly be viewed as such) will always have a chance to be repented of and forsaken once a knowledge of sin is given.
I believe that even in the Law of Moses, there were sacrifices designated for presentation once someone discovered they had been sinning, or had 'accidentally' sinned.
---
On the subect of Same Sex attraction, I hesitate to post this link, but feel that it may explain a view better than I or many others can express. In one of the recent issues of the LDS Church magazine the Ensign, there was an article written by a faithful member who does have same-sex attraction. Here's the link.
As someone who does not have any sort of homosexual inclinations, I would find it somewhat arrogant of myself to say what one who does have those inclinatins feels, and what they should do about it. Seeing as this article was written by someone with Homosexual attraction - but chooses to abstain from acting on them due to their religious convictions -, I felt that this would be a welcomed additional point of view not, as far as I know, represented here.
[ October 26, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:From the Mormon point of view, homosexuality is sinful because an eternal marriage can only exist between a man and woman.
Why does that make homosexuality sinful? Why can eternal marriage only exist between a man and a woman?
quote: From the Catholic point of view, homosexuality isn't a sin, but homosexual acts are. This is because Catholic teaching is that sex is appropriate only between two married people, and that each sex act must be one that would carry a chance of conception if both parties were fertile.
But most homosexuals aren't about to start having sex with the opposite sex. So it's either homosexual sex or no sex, both of which produce the same amount of children.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Some tradegy is the weather of things. It just happens. There's not much that can be done to prevent Earthquakes, diseases are often inevitable. But some things don't have to be like that! Some things don't have to be painful, agonizing and miserable! Sometimes things are that way because of people's attitudes and they way they view things. It makes individual people suffer needlessly! And it has to stop or else things will never get better for so many people! If we thought the same way people think about homosexualiy as they think about, say, people who are handicap things would have never gotten better for people paralysed from the waist down or something. Now we have wheel chairs, ramps and resources to help many people lead a normal life because society yielded and shifting enough to allow for it. No longer did some young man paralyzed in his youth have to just lay in a bed and waste away. He could go out and have a normal life. Gays deserve to have a normal life where tehy can fall in love with who they choose to and be happy and complete and NOTHING should deny that not even religion!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*tackle* Taalcon! You're alive! *joyous*
[ October 26, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
jebus-- The following is my own interpretation of things, and not necessarily doctrine.
In Mormonism, the highest spiritual enlightenment can only be acheived by a man and woman who are married. We are promised that a man and woman thus joined can have progeny after death, and thus continue to live a family life.
Why only men and women, and not same sex couples? Why does a human child, here in mortality, need a sperm and an egg to come into being? Mormons do not necessarily belive that God creates all physical or spiritual laws, nor do we believe that He is clasically omnipotent.
At least, this Mormon does not.
EDIT: And the reason that homosexuality is sinful is because it tends to lead away from the path that would give us the greatest spiritual enlightenment.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
By the Catholic logic, it seems my husband and I have sinned just a greatly as any homosexual. My church ( Evangelical Lutheran ) seems very split on this issue ( I don't know the percentages). I personally do not see two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship as sin, no matter what the genders.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the Catholic logic, it seems my husband and I have sinned just a greatly as any homosexual.
Which is why I think the hysteria by some Christians over homosexuality is misguided in many ways.
There's nothing about homosexual acts that necessitates them being singled out for condemnation over other sexual sins.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bit of an odd LDS Q. If the highest forms of enlightenment are only obtained by the married, why isn't God married (or is he)?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We believe He is married, though the details on Heavenly Mom are sketchy and hard to come by.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
One thing I want to say as well. Sex is one of the "Godly Powers" in that it can "create life". It's one of the powers reserved for God that he gave to mankind, but with huge restrictions. It is to be between a Husband and Wife. Anything else is "abusing" that creative power. There is a reason why God (if you believe thus) made it so that a Man and a Woman when they have natural sexual relations result in Pregnancy. There is also a reason that Homosexual Sex does not under any conditions, create children. That's not to say that all Heterosexual incourse produces children.
But there is a reason that males have certain genitalia and females have certain genitalia and that they compliment each other.
EDIT: It comes with the same restrictions as the Godly Power to "End Life". We have been given the power to do BOTH but with restrictions on when they are to be used/employed.
Because someone chooses to abuse a gift/power given them usually means that it is removed. However in this day and age we tolerate the "abuse" of others of their gifts (of their bodies in all various forms).
But it's not about tolerating anymore, it's about sanctioning that abuse. Officially saying "It's ok".
[ October 26, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Just in case anyone is wondering why I haven't been discussing, it's because I wasn't really interested in discussing; I just wanted to ask the question and hear some answers. So, I've gotten what I wanted. Thanks, everyone. I'm very happy that this thread is so far turning out to be a constructive and controlled discussion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I agree with Saxon. The thread has been very level headed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's one of the powers reserved for God that he gave to mankind, but with huge restrictions."
Hm. Is this a different sex than the kind of sex that tapeworms have? Or koalas? Or is the creation of human life a godly power, while the creation of koala or tapeworm life is just a koala or tapeworm (respectively) power?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Yes it is different in that we were created in God's Image. Animals were not.
I would hope we were more "moral" than an animal who will do "it" with anything, including someone's pant leg.
Morality is one of the differentiations between Humans and Animals. Then again, some want to remove morality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Morality is one of the differentiations between Humans and Animals. Then again, some want to remove morality."
You realize that many higher primates exhibit social taboos, right?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*thinks of bonobos*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes, but WE have more tatoos. . . um TABOOS then them.
That makes us better. Betterer.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
What if your tatoos give you +2 to hit and glow in the presence of magic? Does that make you bettererer?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Which other species has a law against killing another of the same speicies? I'm not familiar with that one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not if the glowing gives you away when trying to sneak into the Orc camp at night.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I will agree that the human species has been unique in our invention of powdered wigs, without which judges and the entire legal system would not be possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which other species has a law against killing another of the same speicies? I'm not familiar with that one.
I doubt an observer of human behavior who didn't know our language would think we have much of a law against killing other humans.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: I doubt an observer of human behavior who didn't know our language would think we have much of a law against killing other humans.
An interesting thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, it's pointless to discuss a proposition which relies on humans being made in the image of God with someone who doesn't believe in God.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Very true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, Dag, I was genuinely curious, and Chad answered my question. Basically, I wanted to know whether it was the creation of any life which was a godly power entrusted to man, or whether the creation of human life was the godly element. That's actually a pretty relevant question, especially with all the genetic modification and stuff going on nowadays.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What if your tatoos give you +2 to hit and glow in the presence of magic? Does that make you bettererer?
Yes, obviously.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That's actually a pretty relevant question, especially with all the genetic modification and stuff going on nowadays.
To quote Bart Simspon: "I want my Monkey Man!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, how is that question relevant? Do you mean that scientists should not pursue the creation of new species of animal?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, Dag, I was genuinely curious, and Chad answered my question. Basically, I wanted to know whether it was the creation of any life which was a godly power entrusted to man, or whether the creation of human life was the godly element. That's actually a pretty relevant question, especially with all the genetic modification and stuff going on nowadays.
Right - I would answer questions like that myself. In fact, I have. However, once I've explained the basic point, I've often wished I stopped responding to the critiques of the answer.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
a) And what will you say when technology allows Same-sex couples to impregnate each other? Will it then not be sinful?
b) What do you hold for ambigious sex children? Because they were born disfigured, they aren't going to be able to enjoy The Highest Enlightment?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Then again, some want to remove morality
Perhaps, though I don't know a single person who does.
I think the vast majority of people simply don't want someone else's highly debatable version of morality thrust upon them. Many of those people believe that a society of people with varying personal moralities can work together civily to agree upon a common public morality, though there is much angry discussion about what should/shouldn't be included in it. Other people do not believe this and prefer bloodshed to tolerance.
quote: But it's not about tolerating anymore, it's about sanctioning that abuse. Officially saying "It's ok".
This seems out of place in the discussion. As this thread was homosexuality from a religious perspective, I've held my tongue thus far. This assertion, though, seems to move the discussion into the realm of secular politics, unless you are specifically talking about some Mormon faction bent on making your church officially sanction homosexuality. If you're talking outside of religion, though, I have to say that it *IS* very much about tolerance. It's also about equal protection and equal rights. And until we live in a theocracy, it is my right as an American to pursue these goals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A) I don't know.
B) Hermaphrodites are pretty rare, and hermaphrodites that don't have a slightly prevailing gender are even rarer. What I assume from situations like this is that God's wisdom will sort things out so that no blessings will be lost.
Not a big comfort, but I doubt that anyone mistakes me for being a very comforting person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pout* I missed the D&D fun. No chance to show off my KamaConAcquired understanding.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hermaphrodites are a genetic defect or conceptive deformity. When found, all efforts are made to "correct" the deformity. How that correlates to homosexuality (which the argument is that it's a "trait" not abnormality) is a whole 'nother debate.
[ October 26, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When found, all efforts are made to "correct" the deformity. How that correlates to homosexuality (which the argument is that it's a "trait" not abnormality) is a whole 'nother debate.
As that "correction" can lead to unbelievable problems for the person, I don't think "correction" is the appropriate term.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And what will you say when technology allows Same-sex couples to impregnate each other? Will it then not be sinful?
I'll say that any man that allows himself to be impregnated and carries the baby to term is eighty times braver than myself. I like the side of the birthing bed that I stand on, thank you very much.
:considers:
Just because God gives us the capacity to invent certain devices, does not always mean that those devices are good to be used. Technology is not moral imperative.
[ October 26, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Hermaphrodites are a genetic defect or conceptive deformity. When found, all efforts are made to "correct" the deformity.
I really don't want to get into this right now, but suffice it to say that there is a sizeable movement among people of ambiguous gender against such "correction."
[Edit: Hey, look at that. That was my 4000th post.]
[ October 26, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: When found, all efforts are made to "correct" the deformity.
This was true some time ago, but there is a definite consensus not to "correct" anything which is not a medical necessity (that is, not to "correct" the genitalia, but definitely to make sure that the child does not have an associated mineralocorticoid deficiency), at least not before one reaches majority and can make such decisions for onself.
[Um, what ^they^ said. ]
[ October 26, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I am aware of such and respect their wishes. It doesn't negate the abnormality of it to begin with.
We may have a movement some day against repairing cleft palettes.
We already have some opinions and movements on "repairing" the sight of blind people.
But there is a difference between a "trait" and an "abnormality" my point is that a "trait" (as homosexuality claims to be) and an abnormality are two different things.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
This is, of course, assuming we believe anyone actually knows or understands the "Will of God."
Endless hypotheticals notwithstanding, God has not deemed it necessary to appear to us in no uncertain terms, universally, and explain His desires for His children.
The Catholic take on this particular issue differs from the Mormons from the Lutherans from the Jack Chik followers.
With that in mind, decide what you believe and reconcile it with your faith. And hope, at the end of the day, you were right.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would be interested in the test one uses to determine if something is a trait or an abnormality, Chad. Since you seem to have special access to it, would you care to enlighten us?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I read that article... I think I feel sad for the person who wrote it. It reminds me of a book I read ages ago about dealing with homosexuality. Seems... lonely and wrong somehow. To deny oneself the connection they crave.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To me, it seems heroic.
But I see Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, and Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed, in the same way.
Christ said that we must be willing to reject everything in order to follow him. Mother, father, work-- anything that stands between ourselves and Christ needs to be moved aside. CS Lewis notes that Christ does not just want a piece of ourselves, not just MOST of what we are-- he wants all of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think...I think, if this is true, if the Lord is really there and we are really his children and there is a plan for us, then it's worth everything.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To me that is an astronomically big "if". And it's not one for which I'm willing to gamble away the only confirmable chance at happiness any of us really have, which is the here and now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But he or she is suffering. They are in pain. Why should they be made to suffer like that? To watch everyone around them fall in love and form families while they are on the outside. It's not right. Things should not be like that. There is enough pain in the world, why create more?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why should they be made to suffer like that? To watch everyone around them fall in love and form families while they are on the outside. It's not right. Things should not be like that. There is enough pain in the world, why create more?
Again-- why is there pain AT ALL?
What makes this man's pain worse than anyone else's?
Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?
[ October 28, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?"
I suppose the answer to this depends on whether you believe actually being homosexual is a choice, or whether there's an involuntary component. Because if it's the latter, it IS less just of God to demand chastity from all homosexuals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Many heterosexuals remain unmarried involuntarily. Is it also unfair to ask them to remain chaste?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Because it just is... If he or she is drawn towards a person of the same sex for compassionship and completion then they should be allowed to be with that person instead of denying themselves that joy. Everyone deserves that! Besides, how can someone who is married, in a relationship expect this person, if the opportunity presented itself to turn away from what makes them happy in an unhedinistic sense? Who's to say that GOD didn't send them someone to love? See the book Truth Dare or Promise. A really good book...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I have to agree with Karl - Pavlov's Wager is a fun exercise in justification, but it is significantly less academic when it impacts your life directly.
I know Bev doesn't like my trotting out of the Great Pumpkin, but during these discussions we assume there is one God and a specific path and some of us assume we know what it is.
What bothers me is: just because the entire human population thinks the world is flat doesn't necessarily make it flat. Just because a lot of people tend to believe more or less the same thing doesn't make them correct, either.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have to agree with Karl - Pavlov's Wager is a fun exercise in justification, but it is significantly less academic when it impacts your life directly.
I know few if any Christians whose life is not impacted just as directly and profoundly by the ramifications of their beliefs.
quote:I know Bev doesn't like my trotting out of the Great Pumpkin, but during these discussions we assume there is one God and a specific path and some of us assume we know what it is.
Trevor, this thread is premised on the existence of God and the validity of Christian doctrine. It's asking a question that starts, "If Christianity..."
How much sense does it make to ask Linus, "If the Great Pumpkin values sincerity so much, how come he does X" and then object to the answer with, "but the Great Pumpkin doesn't exist"?
quote:What bothers me is: just because the entire human population thinks the world is flat doesn't necessarily make it flat. Just because a lot of people tend to believe more or less the same thing doesn't make them correct, either.
Of course, most people have a very mistaken impression about how long ago people realized the earth wasn't flat.
Dagonee
[ October 28, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Trevor, I believe you mean "Pascal's Wager". I'm not familiar with any wager Pavlov might have made.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dag:
1. Very true. However, I would suggest that as a rule, the faith of Christians doesn't condemn them for something they feel is beyond their control. It would be similar, from a homosexual's point of view: "You're a bad person because you're orange. Although you can try to be a better person, you still have to look in the mirror every day and realize you're not a good person."
2. Yes Dag, but which Christian doctrine are we referring? And I mention the Great Pumpkin as a way of illustrating my concern that as a Christian or even a would-be Christian, I am asked to select from one of the following answers. But if we choose to challenge the nature of those answers or indeed the question itself, it skews everything else.
3. Also true. And you might find one or two people who still believe it. But when it was commonly accepted fact, it was still no more correct than it is today.
Mab:
D'oh! You are indeed correct. Pascal it is.
-Trevor
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn:
quote: If he or she is drawn towards a person of the same sex for compassionship and completion then they should be allowed to be with that person instead of denying themselves that joy. Everyone deserves that!
It's not about what you deserve at all, Syn.
It is about whom you choose to follow.
Circumstance does not enter into it at all.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually, they do because circumstances have a way of shifting even the most solid beliefs in the face of them for good or ill...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn:
:shrug:
I don't believe one is morally justified in the eyes of the Christian/Mormon God, in being disobedient just because circumstances have changed.
I do not believe that God is required, or requires Himself, to give people Nice Things. The only thing that God (in my opinion) is required to give the obedient is the assurance that they are doing His will. All the rest is icing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?
How is it just of god to provide a divinely sanctioned outlet for those of his creations he has granted attraction to the opposite sex but to endow others of his creations with attraction to their same sex and then deny any divinely sanctioned outlet?
But then again, how is it just of him to provide the means to satisfy the most gluttonous appetite if you happen to be born in the US, but let you starve if you're born in India or Africa?
It's really pointless to ask any of these questions because God always gets to hide behind the curtain of inscrutability. It's amazing, though, that we can claim to know some facts about God, but at the same time claim that his ways and reasons are beyond our limited comprehension.
quote: What makes this man's pain worse than anyone else's?
Well, for one, this man's pain is borne of being given contrary imperatives. Additionally, most spiritual pain comes after the sin. I can tell you that in the case of homosexuality that the pain often comes years before the "sin" is ever committed.
And since we're discussing the justice of God, how is it just that an omniscient being refuses to tell his "chosen people" how to compassionately deal with the homosexuals among them? "God-sanctioned" treatment of homosexuals has run the gamut from stoning to death, through shock-therapy, and has only in the past 15 - 20 years or so reached the enlightened acknowledgement that, well, OK, maybe you won't go to hell simply for being sexually flawed, but you will if you act on it.
Questions of the justice (or lack thereof) of God are pointless because there is no external standard. The justice of God is that which God does no matter how unjust it might seem to any standard conceivable by human beings. The insidious reality is that you can get humans to do or suffer through anything as long as you can promise them sufficient rewards in the "next" life. It's infinitely more effective if the people being placated with promises that it'll all work out in the end don't actually have to experience the specific pain, suffering, torture, starvation, humiliation, etc.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
KarlEd
well-said
space opera
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How is it just of god to provide a divinely sanctioned outlet for those of his creations he has granted attraction to the opposite sex but to endow others of his creations with attraction to their same sex and then deny any divinely sanctioned outlet?
It isn't just, under your premises, Karl. But this life isn't a judgement. Our circumstances in this world are not meant to be fair.
quote:It's really pointless to ask any of these questions because God always gets to hide behind the curtain of inscrutability. It's amazing, though, that we can claim to know some facts about God, but at the same time claim that his ways and reasons are beyond our limited comprehension.
On the contrary-- I believe God will reveal very clearly to individuals the reasons for their own suffering. But He rarely tells anyone else anyone else's story.
quote:most spiritual pain comes after the sin. I can tell you that in the case of homosexuality that the pain often comes years before the "sin" is ever committed.
I can think of no better reason for Christians to reach out EARLY to young people who are feeling the tug of same-gender attraction in support and love.
quote: how is it just that an omniscient being refuses to tell his "chosen people" how to compassionately deal with the homosexuals among them? "God-sanctioned" treatment of homosexuals has run the gamut from stoning to death, through shock-therapy, and has only in the past 15 - 20 years or so reached the enlightened acknowledgement that, well, OK, maybe you won't go to hell simply for being sexually flawed, but you will if you act on it.
Why are God's people such screwheads, in other words. And why doesn't God let them know.
I beleive He does, but that we don't listen.
quote:The insidious reality is that you can get humans to do or suffer through anything as long as you can promise them sufficient rewards in the "next" life. It's infinitely more effective if the people being placated with promises that it'll all work out in the end don't actually have to experience the specific pain, suffering, torture, starvation, humiliation, etc.
Like I said, I don't believe God tells anyone anyone else's story. The Prophets know and reveal God's will to the world, but they do not know how God has told individuals to go about being obedient.
As far as placating goes-- meh. I don't think most Christians even believe that, Karl. The ones I know certainly don't use the 'better place' excuse the way you've described. For me, the important thing is to obtain forgiveness for my own sins, teach my family and those around me Christ's mercy and goodness, and continue in obedience.
That's quite enough forward thinking for me. Heaven can wait.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
We're all much more comfortable judging the sins of others than turning the judging eyes on ourselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a controversial thread, and it touches on subjects that are very important to many people posting in it. It's been mostly civilized so far - I like it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, if they reach young confused people early it makes matters worse! Love is more... being able to break down a certain wall if you know it will REALLY help the person instead of destroying them. Love is always, always gently and kindly trying to build a person up and truly understand what they are going through with compassion. Sitting there being able to date and marry and touch someone of the opposite sex while a person who is dealing with "same sex attraction" cannot and has to go home with this loneliness and destructive self hatred is NOT a compassionate thing to do. This is the very reason why I have so much trouble with Christianity. I WANT things to be fair. I want the man who falls for a man to be able to be with him because what's to say that if there is a God that God didn't bring this man into his life? How can anyone know? Like it or not, in my view that concept HAS to break to end the cycle of self-hatred, suicide, torture in the name of becoming what you simply cannot be and parents disowning their child for refusing to live like that for the rest of their lives. To me absolutely nothing matters more ethan those connections... Not even God, doctrine or religions is more important.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We disagree.
Want some pie?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Like it or not, in my view that concept HAS to break to end the cycle of self-hatred, suicide, torture in the name of becoming what you simply cannot be and parents disowning their child for refusing to live like that for the rest of their lives.
"If they were fair, they wouldn't be trials."
I don't know Syn, one common misconception of Christianity is that it's fundemental aspect is about helping others and being glorified (which is a good off-shoot of it), when in fact it's about becoming like, or gaining a strong relationship with Christ. Much of Chrisitanity is about self-denial, and personal suffering; changing the path to Christ to make it easier, to keep us from having to deny ourselves, will only change our destination.
Hobbes
[ October 29, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: EDIT: Sin, in my opinion, is knowing that something is against the will of God, and yet still doing it.
Just wanted to pop in way late in the conversation to say that if sin were truly something that could only be done knowingly, then to spread the gospel and to teach people about sin would be the worst disservice you could do for them. Sin is something that's done against of the will of God, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Otherwise, a person would be safest in never hearing that they were sinners, and spreading the gospel would be pointless, even dangerous to their eternal souls.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We become more like God and grow closer to him as we make God-like choices. It isn't possible to make a choice unless you know what the options are and know which choice will bring you closer to the Lord.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
PSI-- kind of a reverse Paschal's wager, hmm? Better to not know the truth at all . . .
I think we're judged on what we know. Throughout the world, it's a pretty standard moral that you don't go around killing people. Therefore, those societies that have this moral, which is in line with the Christian God's morals, will be judged accordingly.
NOW-- just because you haven't technically sinned as I've determined it does not mean that you get a free ride through the pearly gates. When you learn the gospel, you are required to repent for the things you've done that are against God's will. The Mormon understanding of this process teaches that it is much easier to repent while still alive-- and a repentent population makes for a better society.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So, for clarification, your belief is that if a person is out of God's will unknowingly, they must repent/get a chance to repent for it after their life on Earth is over?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If someone has not heard the gospel, or had a proper chance (as defined by God) to accept it, they will have the chance to repent and be baptized after death.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
OK, new question. I'll start by listing a few premises and such that lead me to the question.
Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins? I'm not completely clear on this, but I think that these days most people think that person A doesn't have to bear the burden of person B's sin. There are cases where a sin may involve more than one person--consensual homosexual sex, for example--but, in all cases I can think of, both parties are sinning, so each only bears the consequences of his own sins. We may certainly be affected physically or emotionally by someone else's sins--for example, if you kill me, I am affected--but that is less apropos to the current discussion.
Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice? I list this as a question instead of a premise because the answer is still not completely known by anyone. But I think that in most cases homosexuality is not a choice. Either way, this is not the real question I have, but is necessary to keep in mind for the real question.
Premise: The spiritual effects of sin are not physically measurable in this world. I would think most people can agree to this, but I think it's still important to state first.
Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist? Again, we don't really know the answer to this question. I assume that in some way free will does exist.
The Real Question: So, assuming that we do have free will, homosexuality is not a choice, and that our sins only spiritually affect ourselves, why should we legislate against things like homosexual marriages? If we assume that homosexuality is not a choice, then this eliminates the argument that accepting it will create more homosexuals. I suppose there is the argument that more latent homosexuals could become practicing homosexuals, but it seems to me that, ultimately, every person makes the choice for and bears the responsibility for his own actions. And since the Christian position on homosexuality is quite well known in this country, it seems unlikely that knowledge of the gospel would inform people's decisions to engage or not to engage in homosexual sex. Is it any person's responsibility or right or even ability to stop someone else from sinning? By forcing people through legislation not to engage in homosexual acts, are we restricting their free will? In doing so, are we tainting the value of their abstention from sin (that is, if they can't sin, does it mean anything that they don't)?
I understand that people may disagree with some of my assumptions. We can talk about that, too, although I'm mainly interested in the answer to the question.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In your "Real Question" paragraph you quite blithely moved from legislating against homosexual marriages to legislating against any homosexual actions. I know there are some people who would like to ban both, but the issues are quite different in a lot of ways.
Since SCOTUS has specifically said we can't legislate against homosexual actions (in a decision whose policy outcome I support but whose legal basis I question), there isn't a question anymore of "legislation not to engage in homosexual acts." Granted, there could be a push for an Amendment to allow this, but as far as I know this hasn't been proposed anywhere outside the fringe.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Disclaimer: all this is from my perspective as a Mormon, I don't claim to speak for the LDS Church, much less for Christians in general.
quote:Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Yes, I accept that premise.
quote:Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins? I'm not completely clear on this, but I think that these days most people think that person A doesn't have to bear the burden of person B's sin. There are cases where a sin may involve more than one person--consensual homosexual sex, for example--but, in all cases I can think of, both parties are sinning, so each only bears the consequences of his own sins. We may certainly be affected physically or emotionally by someone else's sins--for example, if you kill me, I am affected--but that is less apropos to the current discussion.
Depends on what you mean, other's sin can have negative impacts on us, almost always does (like say your landlord trying to cheat you out of a few extra bucks on the rent is a sin for them: stealing, and you now have to go through a battle with them, or sacrifice the cash). However, the only person that has to suffer for someone else's sins, was Christ, someone else's sins will never be counted against you, you are responsible for only yourself.
quote:Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice? I list this as a question instead of a premise because the answer is still not completely known by anyone. But I think that in most cases homosexuality is not a choice. Either way, this is not the real question I have, but is necessary to keep in mind for the real question.
Well of course we can and have had gigqantic threads discussing this question, but I have only my opinion to give. Yes, homosexuality is a choice, much harder one for some people than others, but I do think you can choose against it.
quote:Premise: The spiritual effects of sin are not physically measurable in this world. I would think most people can agree to this, but I think it's still important to state first.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're saying that all the negative effects of sin don't occur in this mortal existance, or have impacts we can't see on our own spirtual health, then I agree.
quote:Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist? Again, we don't really know the answer to this question. I assume that in some way free will does exist.
Yes, to me, free will is one of the fundemental aspects of my faith.
quote:[ignoring the part that I already said I don't agree with the premises]but it seems to me that, ultimately, every person makes the choice for and bears the responsibility for his own actions
Ahh, here we are, this is good. Absoltuley true, everyone must pay for their own sins (even if that just means accepting the Attonment of Christ, as I would believe for most sins), and make their own choices. Something being harder or easier does not mean they aren't responsible for it, perhaps they'll be judged easier, perhaps not, I don't know, but I agree, it is up to them.
However, that doesn't mean we can't try and make it harder to sin. It would be a sin steal candy from the store, so if we put candy in someone's hand, then distracted the clerk, it would indeed be that person's sin if they walked out of the store, candy in hand. You would never do that though, right? At the very least we shouldn't facilitate what we believe to be sins, and we should try to stop what we can. Now I don't think that means anything like putting all sins on the lawbook, but some we should (i.e. murder), where you draw the line ... well obviously it depends on you.
quote:it seems unlikely that knowledge of the gospel would inform people's decisions to engage or not to engage in homosexual sex
Perhaps knolwedge wont, testimony of the Gospel would, but I'm not sure where you're going with this...
quote:Is it any person's responsibility or right or even ability to stop someone else from sinning? By forcing people through legislation not to engage in homosexual acts, are we restricting their free will?
In some circumstances, yes, it is our right. Murder is always a favrotie example, it is your right to stop someone from murdering you. Does that limit their free will? Yes, yes it does, but it's still your right. Then it becomes more complicated, is it your right to stop someone from comitting suicide? Now it comes down to personal belief (well murder did too, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one). The thing with homosexuality is that some of us beleive that it does have effects on people besides the homosexuals, just as suicide does. Enough to limit it? Your opinion.
quote:In doing so, are we tainting the value of their abstention from sin (that is, if they can't sin, does it mean anything that they don't)?
Yes, in a way, when you pull the gun out of your asssaliant's hand's your limiting his power to act out his will. Some limits are needed, if we are to live together, we just like to argue over how much freedom we can take away in the name of civility, murder's one extreme just about everyone agrees to limiting, premaritial sex is one that most people in this country agree should not be legistlated. Where's the line in between? Something we all have to decide for ourselves.
Hobbes Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Perhaps knolwedge wont, testimony of the Gospel would, but I'm not sure where you're going with this...
Excuse me, that was a typo. What I meant to say was that in this country most, if not all, people have a pretty good idea of the fact that homosexual acts are sinful. Therefore, that knowledge would affect an adult's decision on whether or not to engage in such acts.
quote:Depends on what you mean, other's sin can have negative impacts on us, almost always does (like say your landlord trying to cheat you out of a few extra bucks on the rent is a sin for them: stealing, and you now have to go through a battle with them, or sacrifice the cash).
I am specifically talking about the spiritual effects of sin. It should be obvious to anyone that sins can have temporal effects on other people; you gave one example yourself. But I'm not talking about temporal effects. I'm only asking about spiritual effects. Can my sins have any spiritual effect on anyone else? Will anyone else have to bear a spiritual burden because of my sins? In short, can my sins damn another person?
quote:In some circumstances, yes, it is our right. Murder is always a favrotie example, it is your right to stop someone from murdering you. Does that limit their free will? Yes, yes it does, but it's still your right. Then it becomes more complicated, is it your right to stop someone from comitting suicide? Now it comes down to personal belief (well murder did too, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one). The thing with homosexuality is that some of us beleive that it does have effects on people besides the homosexuals, just as suicide does. Enough to limit it? Your opinion.
The main reason I am trying to limit the discussion to the spiritual effects of sin is because I am trying to separate what is useful to legislate. Murder and theft have measurable temporal effects on other people. Therefore, we don't have to appeal to any spiritual reasoning in order to legislate against it. We can legislate against murder and theft because they physically and measurably hurt people, regardless of whether or not they are sins. Almost everyone agrees that there are negative effects to murder and theft.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees that there are measurable negative temporal effects of homosexuality. It may be a sin, but what consequence does it have on us here? This is why I included the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice. If we can assume that homosexuality is not a choice, then we don't have to worry too much about it "spreading."
My point is, should we be legislating against things for which the only negative effect is a spiritual one?
But then, you said some people believe homosexuality (or maybe just homosexual acts) do have measurable effects. Can you elaborate on this?
[Edit to add: Would any of your answers here if it could be proven definitively that homosexuality is not a choice? I recognize that this is not the case currently; this is a "what if?".]
--------------------------------
Dag, you are correct, I did slip a bit there. Homosexual acts and gay marriage are not equivalent. Now, my assumption is that most people who want to legislate against gay marriage are against it because it constitutes an acceptance of homosexuality, and that this is bad because of the spiritual harm associated with homosexual acts. So, in my mind, it all comes back to whether or not people think it's a good idea to create legal restrictions on spiritually damaging actions. There may be a fair amount of hand-waving going on on my part, for which I apologize.
[ October 29, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I never post on these threads, and I will probably regret posting on this one . . .
quote: Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
quote: Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins?
Yes. To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion. Hence, I believe that legislation against homosexual behavior (aside from the legal issues that Dags pointed out) is excessive; but for the populace to refuse to endorse such behavior is another thing entirely.
quote: Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice?
I do not claim to know. However, even if it is not, homosexual behavior is. It's not the desire that is the problem. And I believe that God gives no one a test that they lack the ability to pass.
quote: Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist?
Its existence is one of the most basic tenets of my faith. However, that does not mean that there are not degrees of free choice (think degrees of freedom, if you will). I don't believe that we have absolute free choice in all situations; nor that we necessarily should, or need to -- or CAN. (Some other factors (besides externally imposed laws) that limit choice: past experiences, genetics, family one is born into.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, my assumption is that most people who want to legislate against gay marriage are against it because it constitutes an acceptance of homosexuality, and that this is bad because of the spiritual harm associated with homosexual acts.
Anecdotally, I can say this isn't the case. Don't know how this extrapolates to the population as a whole, but I know LOTS of people who are dead-set against legal gay marriage but also dead-set against criminalizing homosexual acts. Many of these people support domestic partner benefits at jobs. Few think two people of the same sex living together as spouses in all but name should be interfered with.
Now we get to my speculation on this: I think the major sticking point is not that most people think homosexuals should be stopped from engaging in homosexual acts, or even living as sexually active couples in the same residence.
I think these people see legal recognition of marriage as an imprimatur or validation of marriage as somehow special, as a bedrock of society. Their underlying thought, articulated or not, is that if homosexuals gain access to the institution of marriage on the theory that marriage is "just a contract," then it means their marriage, current or prospective, will be "just a contract." This is the sense in which homosexual marriage "threatens" marriage, and is why hypothetcial questions about how "2 gay guys getting married will make you get divorced" are not useful arguments to make. The perceived "threat" is not to any individual marriage, but to the prestige of marriage as an institution. The underlying fear is that one more reason to make marriage be "just a piece of paper" will cause people to forego it.*
Anyway, that's why I don't think most opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the desire to "stop people from sinning." Certainly there's some of that, but those aren't the people whose minds you're going to change, especially with theological arguments.
Dagonee * For the record for people who don't know by now, I don't buy this argument for a variety of reasons. But I maintain steadfastly that failure to recognize the reasons for opposition, and to portray the opposition arguments incorrectly, to legal gay marriage only delays its onset.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also something to point out is that there are varying levels of "sin". Due to the "creative" nature/power of "sex", the Godly power of it, it is very, very sacred in my opinion (and I believe to God).
Sins abusing that power are very grave and serious.
Homosexuality falls into the category of "Abomination".
Hence you find that although the vast majority of the population may tolerate the "pracitice" of Homosexuality in thought deed and action as it pertains to the individual.
Actually passing legislation "Sanctioning" an act that to them is an "Abomination" is WAY crossing the line.
As to there being any sort of Biological, etc. reason for Homosexuality. I personally don't believe it is due to close family member's, and very close personal friend's experiences. But that is my opinion.
It also opens the questions for other things that are wrong "morally" in our society. Pedophilia may or may not be biological as well. We don't know and since it's not "widespread" no one is willing to do detailed research on it. However these sites are run by professed pedophiles and are confident that it is genetic:
I'm not saying that Homosexuality and Pedophilia are related or that they have the same "societal consequences" or negatives. However, the argument is the same for both groups of biological reasoning.
If it is found to be biological, does that make it right? or less wrong?
What if rapists are found to have a common "gene" that makes them suceptible to their feelings. "Weaker" to withstand their temptations?
As many already know. I'm a "hardliner".
I have heard this said before, and it bears repeating.
The slipperiest road to hell is that of rationalization.
If you want, you can rationalize any behavior a human can come up with. Unfortunately, if you "rationalize" it for one person, others will want you to make "special allowance" for them as well.
This is all just my opinion, so take it as such.
EDIT: Please don't take this as a Homosexuality = Pedophilia stance because I don't believe such, but simply pointed out that both use their "genetics" are a basis for a large part of their arguments.
[ October 29, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I wonder if it's possible to ever talk about homosexuality on Hatrack without someone bringing up pedophilia or polygamy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Apparantly not.
Although if the subject is a change to one of the current defining characterstics of legal marriage, a change to one of the other defining characteristics seems like fair game.
However, bringing up a relationship where most people consider one participant the victim to compare it to another without a victim seems much more difficult to justify.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, on the "spiritual only negatives" of Homosexuality.....
I believe that sins that appear to "physically" affect only an individual, etc. do NOT only affect them spiritually.
The whole populace is a "people" a "community". By the actions of the unrighteous, the righteous can be spiritually affected in negative ways.
Sodom and Gommorrah was the home of Lot. Lot lost his home, was threatened, etc. Although he was righteous, the inhabitants of the city were wicked. The cities were destroyed.
If you are Mormon or Jewish, you have Lehi or Jeremiah who were righteous, but who lost their homes, etc. when Jerusalem was destroyed because of the wickedness of the inhabitants.
I believe this country is a "Promised Land" given by God to those who dwell here. I believe it's founding was guided by him with laws giving the freedoms necessary for people to choose to be the most righteous the can. It also gives the freedom to choose to sin.
I believe that when the society of this nation chooses to sin more than it chooses to do good, when it chooses to abuse the inspired laws of the country instead of abide by them, then we turn more and more into a "wicked" society.
And if God allows this country to fall because of the wickedness of it's inhabitants, the righteous will suffer as well.
So I don't think there is in many people's mind a "I'm only hurting myself" mentallity for some who are religionists/spiritualists.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Godwin's Collorary -> Homosexuality, Polygamy and Pedophiles.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But homosexual relationships when you start to think about it harm none! Whereas this attitude towards gays hurts millions of people!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Polygamy does not belong in that corrolary.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
We were both wrong - corollary.
I was being mostly humorous, but sure - it works.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I kind of agree that the subject of pedophelia is almost never appropriate when discussing homosexuality, unless someone is talking about peer-reviewed research. It's too inflammatory, and there's too much misinformation out there about it.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You're preaching to the choir on that point, Dag - but somehow, as noted, it inevitably crops up.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I am frequently relieved by the fact that none of the things I enjoy doing or am genetically predisposed towards doing are considered abominable acts capable of bringing down all of American society. Particularly when it comes to deciding where I'd like to insert various parts of my body.
It's very easy to be me.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I never post on these threads, and I will probably regret posting on this one . . .
Oh, I promise not to bite. Seriously, though, people have been behaving themselves remarkably well in this thread. It's almost enough to give me a big head, that people respect me enough to have a real discussion with me. Of course, my head is pretty huge to start with.
quote:Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
I understand that, I really do. I hope I'm not being disrespectful, though, when I wonder how obedient people would be if the religion taught that sin was against God's will, but there would be no consequence for them if they sinned.
quote:To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion.
Interesting. Where do you think that line is? Or, since it's probably not a well-defined border, what needs to be considered when deciding what would constitute excessive coercion?
quote:However, even if it is not, homosexual behavior is.
I agree, which is why I was very particular in my wording. My main concern is not whether or not it is a choice to sin, but whether it is appropriate for people to try to control other people's choices to sin or not sin. And if it is appropriate, how far can it be taken before it becomes inappropriate? People have often told me before in relation to other, more temporal sorts of intervention, that you can only open the door; you can't make anyone walk through it. At what point are we justified in pushing them through?
----------------------------
Dag, I don't think I've ever seen it from quite that angle. It's intriguing, and much more understandable. I still don't buy it, but I can understand it much better.
Still, seeing Chad's post makes me think that there is still an element of spiritual intervention. After all, if there were no question of sin, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
And--I think you know this, but I want to be clear--I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind with this thread. I want to more fully understand what people think and why. If I seem argumentative it's only because asking pointed questions helps me get the information I'm looking for.
---------------------------
quote:It also opens the questions for other things that are wrong "morally" in our society. Pedophilia may or may not be biological as well. We don't know and since it's not "widespread" no one is willing to do detailed research on it. However these sites are run by professed pedophiles and are confident that it is genetic:
Chad, the reason I discount the comparison to pedophilia in this case comes back to measurable temporal effects. It doesn't matter to me whether a pedophile has a biological predilection toward being attracted to children because in the vast majority of pedophilia cases there is actual psychological harm that can be measured. Therefore we don't need to appeal to spiritual or moral reasoning to outlaw pedophilia. Well, we do appeal to moral reasoning, but the morality is tied to the temporal harm, not the spiritual harm. Similarly, I wouldn't say it's OK for a person to commit murder simply because he has a chemical imbalance in his brain (though I might argue that he should be sentenced differently) because there is temporal harm in murder. Homosexuality--or, at least, homosexual acts between two consenting adults--seems different because it is more difficult to identify the temporal harm.
Now, when you say that the righteous will suffer in a wicked society, what do you mean? Supposing that their right to worship is not interfered with and they are not prevented from living righteous lives, what temporal harm comes to them?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks for your response, and this may sound "dumb" but when you speak of temporal "harm" you are speaking of morality.
Scientifically, there is no "harm" there is only cause and effect. It's our moral base that says that ending a life is "wrong" instead of "right" or "beneficial" or that the stress put upon the mind of a child is "wrong" or "harmful" there is only the effect and our morals deem it "harmful".
Right, wrong, good, bad, beneficial, harmful are all "morality" words. And then the question is raised, what if our "morality" changes? Then what is the constant? What is the "basis" for what is right and what is wrong?
For me, that is where God comes in.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Now, when you say that the righteous will suffer in a wicked society, what do you mean? Supposing that their right to worship is not interfered with and they are not prevented from living righteous lives, what temporal harm comes to them?
A few examples, some serious, some not: AIDS. There are many in Africa who have it who have participated in none of the actions which spread it. Same in the US. The ways in which it are spread are by actions defined as "sinful".
If someone who is wicked steals but from someone who is righteous, is not the righteous person affected?
If someone wants an Abortion or wants the Government to pay for AIDS research, and I being a citizen pay taxes, are not I taxed for beliefs I don't share? Am I not required to pay for actions I deem "sinful"?
Are your taxes used to spread religion or religious actions you don't agree with?
Would you have a problem if you were paying taxed to spread such?
I guess the question would be in a "round-about" way.
Would liberals suffer in a conservative theocracy? History has shown that yes they probably would.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Chad, you are, of course, correct; when I talk about temporal harm I am making an appeal to moral reasoning. I even admitted as much in my last post. But I submit that it is a moral reasoning of a different order in that it is tied to observable phenomena rather than unobservable noumena. It's easier to get people to agree with morality based on phenomena because of the very fact of the observability of phenomena.
Now, your examples of how the righteous suffer in a wicked society are quite valid, but with one possible exception, they are not ones that could be directly related to homosexual actions.
quote:A few examples, some serious, some not: AIDS. There are many in Africa who have it who have participated in none of the actions which spread it. Same in the US. The ways in which it are spread are by actions defined as "sinful".
The major ways that AIDS is transmitted are unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. And while AIDS does (the last I heard, anyway) have a higher occurrance in the gay population, it is by no means a "gay disease." (Note, I am not saying that you think it is a gay disease.) Now, as I understand it, the spread of AIDS through sexual contact has much more to do with promiscuity and lack of barrier protection than with sexual orientation. People who engage in responsible, monogamous sex are far, far less likely to contract AIDS, or any other sexually-transmitted disease, for that matter. It seems to me that the fewer homosexuals were "in the closet," the less homosexuality would be correlated with irresponsible sexuality.
quote:If someone who is wicked steals but from someone who is righteous, is not the righteous person affected?
If someone wants an Abortion or wants the Government to pay for AIDS research, and I being a citizen pay taxes, are not I taxed for beliefs I don't share? Am I not required to pay for actions I deem "sinful"?
True, but this is an entirely different subject. Theft and abortion--or, if you prefer, murder--have no real relation to homosexual behavior, except insofar as all of them are sin. But there is no correlation between homosexual acts and theft, and it seems quite obvious that there would be even less correlation with abortion. Since the spread of homosexual behavior--should that happen--would almost certainly fail to lead to increased theft and abortion, I don't think this is particularly apropos to the current discussion.
quote:Are your taxes used to spread religion or religious actions you don't agree with?
I don't know. It's possible.
quote:Would you have a problem if you were paying taxed to spread such?
In principle, I probably would. Would gay marriages or civil unions present much, if any, intrinsic burden to the taxpayers?
quote:Would liberals suffer in a conservative theocracy? History has shown that yes they probably would.
My history is a little unclear here, but I'll go along with your assertion. Even so, I don't see this as being equivalent. Again, it all comes back to temporal harm. If liberals suffered in a conservative theocracy, my bet is that it involved temporal harm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I don't think I've ever seen it from quite that angle. It's intriguing, and much more understandable. I still don't buy it, but I can understand it much better.
Yeah, well, I don't buy it either, but more so because of my views about the legal system than my views about marriage.
quote:Still, seeing Chad's post makes me think that there is still an element of spiritual intervention. After all, if there were no question of sin, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
There's no question that the religious beliefs about homosexuality are in play here - otherwise the "it's just a contract" rationale wouldn't even be coming into play. But I think it explains the vast difference in numbers between support for striking down sodomy laws, instituting legal gay marriage, and instituting civil unions.
quote:And--I think you know this, but I want to be clear--I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind with this thread. I want to more fully understand what people think and why. If I seem argumentative it's only because asking pointed questions helps me get the information I'm looking for.
Yeah. But I think I expressed it more clearly than I have before, largely because of the way you framed the questions, so I didn't want to pass up the opportunity.
Dagonee
[ October 30, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
I understand that, I really do. I hope I'm not being disrespectful, though, when I wonder how obedient people would be if the religion taught that sin was against God's will, but there would be no consequence for them if they sinned.
But . . . that's not possible, at least not in the worldview of (traditional, Orthodox) Judaism. We believe that the purpose of life is to become closer to God. Anything which does so (such as trying to improve oneself, trying to improve the world in which we all live) is a mitzvah. Anything which forces us away from Him is a chet -- no good translation, but "sin" comes the closest. All other consequences follow naturally from the fact that one has pushed God away.
quote:
quote: To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion.
Interesting. Where do you think that line is? Or, since it's probably not a well-defined border, what needs to be considered when deciding what would constitute excessive coercion?
It's complex. But anything that I might do that is assisting someone else to sin, is also a sin on my part. When I have questions about what I may (or should) do, I consult with my rabbi.
quote: I agree, which is why I was very particular in my wording. My main concern is not whether or not it is a choice to sin, but whether it is appropriate for people to try to control other people's choices to sin or not sin. And if it is appropriate, how far can it be taken before it becomes inappropriate? People have often told me before in relation to other, more temporal sorts of intervention, that you can only open the door; you can't make anyone walk through it. At what point are we justified in pushing them through?
Perhaps at the point where their not walking through threatens our well-being as well? But I would agree that this is a poorly-defined line, on which intelligent, moral people can (and do) disagree.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, I am glad that you have posted in this thread.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions, saxon, and the effort you are taking to understand a POV that is not your own. It isn't easy to do, but it helps bridge gaps and helps us to see eye to eye. I know I have enjoyed reading this thread.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
KarlEd![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)