Abstinence Criticized

[RendeR]

Sorry. Fact is, the Bible states early and often that the physical world we see around us is less important and real than the spiritual one behind it. "God is spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth."

Ok, so the spiritual world is more important, fine, Gays and Lesbians can believe this way if they see fit, no argument here.

The Bible details who God is, and just as importantly what God's relationship is to be with us (of our own choice), and how we are to be obediant to God's plan. The Bible is under the guidance and witness of God's presence on earth today, His Holy Spirit. You can find certain factual errors in certain verses (devil's myth about the horns comes from the horn representing political power on earth.) But the overall thread of the Bible will always remain consistant and without error. (New International Version is actually a more accurate translation than the King James, from what I understand.)

Yes, the Bible is the human interpretation of god's will, wishes, and works, sure, I can accept that too. Your reference to the obvious errors and fallacies within it provide more than enough support for that stance.

Homosexuality is always pointed out in the Bible as a consequence of individuals or even nations turning their backs on God and the consequence of their sin. History shows us that when homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in society then that society is nearer its end than its beginning. "God is not mocked."

Now here you're stretching it a bit. There are references to homosexuality throughout the bible, however neither do all of them call it a consequence of disbelief in god, NOR is there any proof what so ever that acceptance of it indicates a decline in society. Sorry bubba, your halo gets tarnished here, no facts, no validity.

The Bible also shows those who care to learn from it that homosexuality is actually spiritual in nature, and it results from the presence and even pocession of a person by unclean spirits. These spirits, like all other anti-Judeo-Christian forces in the world since ancient times seeks to raise the physical over the spiritual. But as God clearly tells us "There is a way seems right unto a man, but the ways therein are the ways of death." God refers to not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

Here you bring up my original point. There are untold numbers of divisions within the christian belief system. Not all Christians believe the same things you might for example. Not everyone will believe that homosexuality is spiritual in nature, many infact believe it may be a genetic tendancy, or even a learned behaviour. So this validates my point Christianity is a personal belief system, no matter what denomination you belong to, or if you simply follow it in your own way (GASP) it is not based on the bible, to be christian you could read martha stewarts cooking books if you wished, as long as you believe in the deification of christ. THAT is the basis of christianity. The bible is just the tool used to support that belief.

Now no where in any of this have you shown anything that says a gay or lesbian person could not believe in the crucifiction and martyrdom of christ. IF they believe in that, they are as christian as you or the next person. Wether YOU as a christian of another denomination or belief system accept that ir irrelevent, you don't have a right to tell them how to believe in god, now do you?

[Drake]

dola...

I've never been able to figure out why Xians are so willing to give murderers and child molesters a pass on sin because they repent, but seem to view homosexuality as an unforgiveable offense. Look, I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, though I myself find the evidence something less than convincing. In any event, I don't know about you, but the God my parents taught me about said that sin is sin. There is no hierarchy, so I don't see any reason to condemn homosexuality more than something "minor" like treating my wife disrespectfully or provoking my children to wrath.

If it's a sin, let God sort it out, just like he'll sort out all the foul language users and the uncircumcised and any Canaanites that happen to still be lurking about after the Hebrew genocide program. And if it isn't a sin, aren't you going to look like a dumbass when you try to explain to God that you persecuted fellow believers because you thought that was what He wanted?

Bottom line is that God is either sovereign or He isn't. He's omnipotent and can take care of His own business, or He's a pussy and He needs the help of flunkies to strong arm pagans into submission. And frankly, if that's God, He's just a bully and doesn't really deserve our adoration in the first place.

[RendeR]

Well said Drake.

[Noble_Platypus]

I will not further engage in a battle over this. But as one last response to your posts, you ask why christians give murders a pass when they repent but not gays. You answered your own question. The murderer repented, while the gay continues to live a homosexual life. Had the murderer not repented he would not go to heaven either. I know anyone can twist anything into whatever they want, as evidenced by the fact that a teenage girl tries to help push waiting on sex and homosexuals turn into an anti gay movement.Say what you will, believe whatever you wish. If you think that you will be rewarded one day for the life you live so be it.I really dont care how you interpret things. Everyone on here post evidence from other sites. Some because it supports what they want to believe, others taht dont support your thoughts you attack their credibility. I choose to cut out the middleman and read the scripture. If you can read the verse about homosexuality is an abomination and still twist it so you believe its ok by God to be gay then its pointless to continue this banter, which is why I am quitting now.

[RendeR]

Noble, the only thing I'd like to say to that is this:

The Bible is only as good as your own interpretation of it. What I would hope all people would come to realize is that whatever your beliefs, they are yours and yours alone, and you have no right or priviledge to foist them on another person.

The beginning of the thread developed into a reaction to what some people Interpreted as another way that Christianity is attempting to persecute Homosexuals because of the difference in their beliefs. Wether that was the intent (which I doubt it was by the girl) or not, the fact remains that homosexuals ARE persecuted. I fail to understand or accept anyone's religion trying to tell me that that is acceptable behaviour.

I accept that I am not going to sway christians in this because they are told to believe what they believe and are threatened with "hell" if they go against it. They choose to follow that faith for whatever personal reasons. What I will never accept is the outright discrimination of a group of people for their beliefs. Christians ought to have a clue about that, but sometimes I think they've forgotten.

[Fonzie]

I promised myself that I wouldn't step into this muck, but here I am, breaking my promise to myself (and thereby making myself an abomination - see below). My intent here is to establish a line of reasoning, using direct Biblical quotations, that suggest a serious flaw in the literal Biblical proclomation that homosexuality is an "abomination" and those who practice it cannot be Christian, which seems to serve as the basis for the anti-gay marriage movement. At the very least I hope to provide a serious conundrum to those making the argument.

Let's start! The Bible is, for many, the definitive resource for determining how God wants his followers to live their lives. And it is easy to see how...

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she [is] thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.

18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.

18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she [is] thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she [is] thy father's near kinswoman.

18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she [is] thy mother's near kinswoman.

18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she [is] thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it [is] wickedness.

18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

...all make some general sense. If we assume that the "uncovering of nakedness" is a euphemism for "having sex with" then these are more or less reasonable restrictions. Making hearty, healthy babies is the name of the game here - ensuring that a wide variety of folks contribute to the gene pool and prohibiting incest seems like downright good ideas, especially given the times in which these were written. People weren't as healthy back then, living conditions were harsh, and survival was by no means guaranteed. These rules help to ensure successful procreation, allowing the clan and its culture to continue. Thus, violating any of these orders reduces the chances of clan survival, which makes that behavior abominable and results in doom (though I confess to not understanding why having sex with a menstruating woman is an abomination of this order). Okay.

It is within this context that the next listed prohibition:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

...needs to be interpreted. A man cannot fertilize another man - and wasting time on this effort reduces the overall survivability of the clan to some degree. This is, in my opinion, the real reason why the Bible forbade homosexuality - it posed a potential complication to procreation at a time when survival was much harder. Reading Lev 18:22 out of context can lead some to conclude that homosexuality is an abomination in its own right and automatically eliminates one from consideration as a member in good standing of the Christian faith. But such an unsophisticated reading of that individual passage misses the point: these rules are intended to ensure the survival of the group via procreation!

Now, given that the Christian sect is in no imminent danger of failing to produce lots of babies or having its culture fade into obscurity anytime soon it seems difficult to argue that there is a pressing need to ensure frequent fertilization of females (indeed, given the world's current population we could probably use a lot fewer people of every denomination). Thus, it would make sense to revisit some of these "abominations" and consider easing up a bit on the now-harmless abominations (like sex during her period or homosexual behavior) while retaining the clearly harmful prohibitions (incest, primarily).

Of course, there are those who would disagree with this logic, or even the whole premise of "reinterpretation grounded within a reasonable context" and argue that "if the Bible says its an abomination, then its an abomination, period." To them I'd say - hold onto your hat, for if you have:

- eaten clams ( Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you);

- worn polyblend fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together);

- told a lie of any kind (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight);

- committed adultery (Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her);

- trimmed your beard (Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.);

- gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD);

- charged interest on a loan (Psalms 15:5 [He that] putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things] shall never be moved);

- or paid interest on a loan (Jeremian 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; [yet] every one of them doth curse me)

...then you have committed an abominable act in God's eyes. If you have done any of these things you are in the same class of doomed souls as homosexuals, and are thus just as unviable a candidate for Christianity as they. Indeed, perhaps we should begin erecting laws to defend the pure morality of the non-polyblend-fabric-wearers from the encroachments of the heathen polyblend-fabricians. Unless, of course, it might just be worthwhile to revisit and reassess the utility of reinterpreting the intent of these behaviors prohibited by the Bible.

And one final thought - Jesus had this to say which might be relevant to this discussion, given the high probability that abomination-committers are among the those railing against the "abomination" of homosexuality:

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

[sabotai]

Some because it supports what they want to believe, others taht dont support your thoughts you attack their credibility.

Just one thing. Every source should have its credibility questioned. If the source is not credible, then the information from that source is completely useless. If you want to post sources after sources but never have their credibility questioned, then you obviously should not get into discussions about anything with anyone. The credibility of a source is one of the, is not the, most important factor in considering the information from that source.

Which is why you'll never see me take seriously a political source from Cam.

[korme]

WTF? Milford HS in Michigan? That's the fourth instance of Milford I've heard of now..

[korme]

In the quiet words of the virgin mary, come again?

[sabotai]

We've lost..Gorgeous George.

[Bubba Wheels]

I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but based on what passes for "logic' amongst those that insist on attacking my position, I am not alone in that. RendeR fails in insisting that the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. It cannot be. The Bible interprets itself. There is much latitude given to different styles (such as contemporary or traditional-style worship service) but the substance always remains the same (Jesus Christ is God, He died for our sins, and you MUST receive His forgiveness thru confession and repentace to be "born-again."

Homosexual behavior is sin in the Bible, same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, ect...this is irrefutable. But it is not up to me to be some kind of 'cop.' Do what you want. All I have attempted to do is to put forth the Point-of-View as stated in the Bible and that guides the vast majority of Judeo-Christian believers. All I have stated is that if you want your point of view respected, then you must respect the same from others even if you don't like it. There has to be some boundries, and one simple boundry that applies here is to realize that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians and so don't try to push it on them in public forums, like schools, under names like 'equality' or 'tolerance.' Keep your own lifestyle to yourself exactly as you would loudly (see all the above) would insist that Christians keep their convictions to themselves if you don't want to hear it. That is fair. I'm done.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is a cogent and irrefutable claim.

Or not. Name examples. How about all the societies that fervently repressed homosexuality before their collapse (ie Victorian England).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but based on what passes for "logic' amongst those that insist on attacking my position, I am not alone in that. RendeR fails in insisting that the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. It cannot be. The Bible interprets itself. There is much latitude given to different styles (such as contemporary or traditional-style worship service) but the substance always remains the same (Jesus Christ is God, He died for our sins, and you MUST receive His forgiveness thru confession and repentace to be "born-again."

Homosexual behavior is sin in the Bible, same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, ect...this is irrefutable. But it is not up to me to be some kind of 'cop.' Do what you want. All I have attempted to do is to put forth the Point-of-View as stated in the Bible and that guides the vast majority of Judeo-Christian believers. All I have stated is that if you want your point of view respected, then you must respect the same from others even if you don't like it. There has to be some boundries, and one simple boundry that applies here is to realize that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians and so don't try to push it on them in public forums, like schools, under names like 'equality' or 'tolerance.' Keep your own lifestyle to yourself exactly as you would loudly (see all the above) would insist that Christians keep their convictions to themselves if you don't want to hear it. That is fair. I'm done.

Again, millions of Christians interpret the Bible differently than you and you don't "respect their view." And until "straights" keep their lifestyle private by not getting married it is hypocritical to ask gays to stay in the closet.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is a cogent and irrefutable claim.

I assumed this was pure sarcasm. If not, it's quite amusing.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Or not. Name examples. How about all the societies that fervently repressed homosexuality before their collapse (ie Victorian England).

Or all of the societies that accepted homosexuality from day 1...

But like yabanci, I thought he was being sarcastic, so I didn't reply.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I often wish to bring my perspective to these types of threads, but then I remember the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 and go back to my corner.

When I first read your post I thought the wise Matthew 7:6 verse your were referring to was "Touch my pussy and die", then I realized that was your sig. It is your sig right? That would be a kick ass Bible verse though...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Yes, it was sarcastic. Blaming homosexuality for the downfall of a society (Rome, for instance?) is pretty ridiculous and shows one is not interested in historical fact, but dogma instead.

Sorry - I assumed because you pulled out one sentence, you agreed with Bubba. Otherwise, I thought you would have applied your response to his whole nonsense message.

[wig]

Who here thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories meant to teach various lessons?

*raises hand*

Seriously, I don't think this book was meant to be taken literally.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by wig

Who here thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories meant to teach various lessons?

*raises hand*

Seriously, I don't think this book was meant to be taken literally.

I agree with you - and that's one of the points I was trying to make with my long-winded diatribe above. But some "literalists" refuse to reinterpret the Bible's laws in a modern context (which is their right), but what they fail to realize is that they are implicity reinterpreting the Bible's laws by picking and choosing which ones to make a big stink about. Railing about homosexuality while ignoring the above-described prohibition on clam-eating or the charging of interest is just one example.

[Fonzie]

Dola-

yabanci, I didn't see your post when I submitted mine (I was working on it for a while), so I apologize for the redundancy!

[tucker342]

First off, teaching abstinence doesn't work... what they should do instead is have a box of condoms for kids. They should teach kids that sex is a thing that a couple should enjoy together when they're ready.


First and foremost, sex should not be a Taboo subject. Kids should be able to go to their parents about sex, without feeling embarrassed or judged.

[tucker342]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Bubba, to begin with, there is nothing "anti-christian" about homosexuality, thousands if not tens of thousands of christians are gay. It happens, accept it. Secondly, there is nothing Anti-christian in teaching kids how to not get pregnant if they DO for whatever reason have sex. so frankly, your example is a load of horse shit, please shovel it back into your load where it came from.

People being killed because of their religion is historic, its happened for all time. From my own research and readings on the subject I can promise you that far more have died at the hands of christians than the other way around at this point. The very fact that you bring up this subject tells me just how closed your mind is to other points of view.

And as for the respecting of rights and sensitivities, when christian "bible thumpers" stop mid sermon and say "you know, I'm sorry, you obviously don't want to hear this, I'll leave you alone now" and do so, when they are trying their best to convert me. I'll give them the same respect and not tell them how completely assinine they're being. Religion is a PERSONAL spiritual journey, no single person in the world has the right to tell another person how they should believe. Enjoy your personal beliefs, but don't even think of projecting yours on to my way of life. Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.


*Edit* sorry i got a bit off track there:

The idea that they want to promote abstinence is fine, its not a bad thing for high school kids, they should grow up more before getting into sex. However, I can see the homosexuals point of view that the wording and perception of this campaign is biased against them. They can't marry, and using the word "until marriage" is something that will hit them straight in the face. Call it abstinance day, and suddenly they'll be being open and accepting to ALL people.

And just to add to this: Being abstinant does not define being pure. Their whole thought process is wrong there.

VERY well said RendeR

[wig]

Sex is natural, sex is good...
Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Sex is natural, sex is fun....
Sex is best when it's one - on - one.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by wig

Sex is natural, sex is good...
Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Sex is natural, sex is fun....
Sex is best when it's one - on - one.

actually, I always thought it was best two - on - one but whatever floats yer boat.

[CamEdwards]

I don't know if this has been brought up in the 130 posts here, but gay and lesbians can get married in plenty of churches. This isn't a government program, it's a spiritual program. Therefore, I fail to see how it's bigoted to suggest people wait until they get married until they have sex. Gay and lesbian teens could simply wait until they're an adult and then get married in a church that will marry them.

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Drake

dola...

I've never been able to figure out why Xians are so willing to give murderers and child molesters a pass on sin because they repent, but seem to view homosexuality as an unforgiveable offense. Look, I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, though I myself find the evidence something less than convincing. In any event, I don't know about you, but the God my parents taught me about said that sin is sin. There is no hierarchy, so I don't see any reason to condemn homosexuality more than something "minor" like treating my wife disrespectfully or provoking my children to wrath.

This is a couple of days late, but I have kind of avoided this thread. The basic reason why christians are willing to forgive murderers etc. is that there is a change that is exspected of the person. Sure We will forgive a murder, but we then exspet them to no longer kill people. And (conservative) Christians will forgive homosexuals if they are willing to give up their homosexual lifestyle.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

And then Melissa went to college and let the good times roll...

ROFL!

Abstinence works great in theory but isn't practical. I'm sure we'd all love to think our kids are saving themselves for marriage but we were all young dumb and full of you know what at one time and know how it goes.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by AgPete

Abstinence works great in theory but isn't practical.

Really? Care to explain why this isn't practical?

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Really? Care to explain why this isn't practical?

Because plenty of kids are going to have sex in high school and junior high regardless of how many lectures or rallies they go to promoting abstinence or how many times they tell mom and dad they're virgins. I know what happened when I was growing up, I assume it hasn't changed.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by AgPete

Because plenty of kids are going to have sex in high school and junior high regardless of how many lectures or rallies they go to promoting abstinence or how many times they tell mom and dad they're virgins. I know what happened when I was growing up, I assume it hasn't changed.

Not all kids are going to practice it because it's taught, but that's how it is for most things. We tell kids that things like murder and rape are wrong, but some people still do these things. Obviously premarital sex is not on the same level as these things, but the fact that not everyone will listen to the message (and certianly some do listen) doesn't mean that it's not practical to teach to kids.

I don't think that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught, and kids should be told that if they do have sex to do so in a safer method, but I don't think it is pointless to teach abstinence.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Not all kids are going to practice it because it's taught, but that's how it is for most things. We tell kids that things like murder and rape are wrong, but some people still do these things. Obviously premarital sex is not on the same level as these things, but the fact that not everyone will listen to the message (and certianly some do listen) doesn't mean that it's not practical to teach to kids.

I don't think that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught, and kids should be told that if they do have sex to do so in a safer method, but I don't think it is pointless to teach abstinence.

I have no problem with a section on abstinence during a safe sex course. I guess to me, abstinence is the obvious solution and really shouldn't even need to be taught. Everyone has the common sense to say no. Maybe abstinence needs to be taught because some kids feel that none of their peers practice it and it helps them feel like they fit in by saving it for marriage. I just hope our nation's educators are realistic about the effectiveness of telling some kid, "Don't do it!" It's awfully hard for a hormone crazy teenager to refrain from participating in a god-given pleasure, especially when a lot of their peers already seem to be experimenting with it.

[tabucko]

I just don't see all the "hidden agenda" crap. Some kids opinions are that there is too much talk of casual sex and they want to abstain and tell others. Big deal. Do you agree there is too much sex by our children or not enough? So they wear their t-shirts. Of all the high school kids there are in this country, what percentage wore these shirts? I highly doubt this is going to catch fire and everyone is doing it, especially if they tag this topic to anything religious, because we all know that any religious topic will offend someone, and we can't have that in this PC environment. Besides, there isn't one horny teenage guy that isn't going to wear this shirt. They will just see the girls to avoid or try to get in their pants because it is a challenge.

Although I don't have the answer, I disagree that throwing condoms at our youth and saying "well, if you're going to do it, at least be safe." To me that is an invitation. Not the same, but if a store owner in the inner city says "I'm going to get robbed, I might as well leave the door unlocked so they don't break the window" sounds just as absurd to me.

I really did enjoy the conversations regarding everyone trying to interpret the Bible to fit their own agenda, even though I did get pissed once in a while. Oh well, that is why I come here to read about your opinions. Thanks for the enjoyable thread.

tabucko

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't know if this has been brought up in the 130 posts here, but gay and lesbians can get married in plenty of churches. This isn't a government program, it's a spiritual program. Therefore, I fail to see how it's bigoted to suggest people wait until they get married until they have sex. Gay and lesbian teens could simply wait until they're an adult and then get married in a church that will marry them.

I think the point of discrimination here is that gays and lesbins can't be legally married anywhere in this country (I could be wrong, MA is actually wasting eons of time debating it even now)

If you don't have a marriage license, you can't be married even in a church/religious setting or program, this I think is what set the whole topic off to begin with, gays and lesbians are denied the right to legal protection through marriage for their significant others, children and loved ones. When they used the terminolgy "until marriage" the gay and lesbian community was being indirectly at least, put upon.

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to post something when I'm this tired and its this lat...err early in the morning....

night folks!

[Peregrine]

A co-worker of mine that went to my former church was gay. I saw him struggle with it day by day, he prayed for relief from it, we prayed for him in bible studies and in church, he asked advice of the pastor and the church elders, and it was never enough. He would always "fall back" into the homosexual lifestyle for a while, and then be too ashamed to come back to church for a while because people would make comments about it. It really shook me, I am telling you I've never seen a guy try harder to "not be gay" than he did, he just couldn't do it. He did everything possible but he always fell back into the same sin. I know many other people in churches that struggle with other sins like lust, greed, etc to the same degree. I would hope that they all would be able to go to heaven, assuming they have truly asked Jesus to be their savior.

That's the only problem I have with the "homosexuality as abomination" school of thought, I'd hate to see someone like my friend condemned to Hell for something he struggled so mightily against. Some of my Christian friends believe that he would be damned but those who fall in and out of "mere" lust, drunkenness or greed would be spared.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think the point of discrimination here is that gays and lesbins can't be legally married anywhere in this country (I could be wrong, MA is actually wasting eons of time debating it even now)

If you don't have a marriage license, you can't be married even in a church/religious setting or program, this I think is what set the whole topic off to begin with, gays and lesbians are denied the right to legal protection through marriage for their significant others, children and loved ones. When they used the terminolgy "until marriage" the gay and lesbian community was being indirectly at least, put upon.

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to post something when I'm this tired and its this lat...err early in the morning....

night folks!

I don't think "legal marriage" has a place in this debate. This is one religious group advocating abstinence until marriage, and religious marriage is already available to gays and lesbians. To put this into the debate over state-sanctioned marriage is wrong, IMO.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

A co-worker of mine that went to my former church was gay. I saw him struggle with it day by day, he prayed for relief from it, we prayed for him in bible studies and in church, he asked advice of the pastor and the church elders, and it was never enough. He would always "fall back" into the homosexual lifestyle for a while, and then be too ashamed to come back to church for a while because people would make comments about it. It really shook me, I am telling you I've never seen a guy try harder to "not be gay" than he did, he just couldn't do it. He did everything possible but he always fell back into the same sin. I know many other people in churches that struggle with other sins like lust, greed, etc to the same degree. I would hope that they all would be able to go to heaven, assuming they have truly asked Jesus to be their savior.

That's the only problem I have with the "homosexuality as abomination" school of thought, I'd hate to see someone like my friend condemned to Hell for something he struggled so mightily against. Some of my Christian friends believe that he would be damned but those who fall in and out of "mere" lust, drunkenness or greed would be spared.

Great post, Peregrine. I think the reason most Xians are so willing to condemn homosexuality out of hand is simply because most Xians don't struggle with it. Because they can't understand it, it makes it easier to judge and condemn people who do. It seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm sure we've all got our blind spots.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

This is a couple of days late, but I have kind of avoided this thread. The basic reason why christians are willing to forgive murderers etc. is that there is a change that is exspected of the person. Sure We will forgive a murder, but we then expect them to no longer kill people. And (conservative) Christians will forgive homosexuals if they are willing to give up their homosexual lifestyle.

You're right, stkelly. I picked a couple of poor examples. Please substitute: "alcoholics" and "fornicators". I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again here: people in churches are more willing to give people struggling with these issues (also identified as sin) a pass because we understand the temptations. Homosexuality "tempts" a smaller segment of the population (and, I'd be almost certain, statistically an even smaller set of the self-selected religious population), and isn't as readily sympathized with because it is a cultural other.

My point all along has been: I don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I just don't see any reason why Xians should treat it any differently than any of the other "struggles" of the Christian walk. If it is a sin, it's neither better nor worse than any other one. And even if it is a sin, the church's approach to it is flat out bigotry, and will continue to be bigotry until the church stops allowing alcoholics, pornographers, fornicators or other varieties of the sinful to attend church until they "get themselves cleaned up".

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

[Drake]

and dola again...

I don't want to suggest that most of the points in the message above were in any way direct responses to stkelly52's stated or implied theology. I started with his point and went off on my own tangent.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

I'm so glad someone finally said what I've been thinking. Oh, except I would have actually typed out the word, "christian."

[Drake]

Sorry. I started abbreviating "Xian" when I was taking notes in college, and the habit stuck.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Drake

You're right, stkelly. I picked a couple of poor examples. Please substitute: "alcoholics" and "fornicators". I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again here: people in churches are more willing to give people struggling with these issues (also identified as sin) a pass because we understand the temptations. Homosexuality "tempts" a smaller segment of the population (and, I'd be almost certain, statistically an even smaller set of the self-selected religious population), and isn't as readily sympathized with because it is a cultural other.

My point all along has been: I don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I just don't see any reason why Xians should treat it any differently than any of the other "struggles" of the Christian walk. If it is a sin, it's neither better nor worse than any other one. And even if it is a sin, the church's approach to it is flat out bigotry, and will continue to be bigotry until the church stops allowing alcoholics, pornographers, fornicators or other varieties of the sinful to attend church until they "get themselves cleaned up".

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

Outside of wackos like Fred Phelps (who don't represent the views of mainstream Christians), I think you'd find that the vast majority of churches wouldn't condone ANY celebratory and continual acts of sin. It's kind of funny that you say that churches are more forgiving of fornication, considering the original subject of this thread was abstinence.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't think "legal marriage" has a place in this debate. This is one religious group advocating abstinence until marriage, and religious marriage is already available to gays and lesbians. To put this into the debate over state-sanctioned marriage is wrong, IMO.

How and where are you seeing religious marriage for gays and lesbians? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a church or religious organization that will marry anyone without a state certified marriage license. Can you enlighten me a bit here Cam? While I understand that any organization, church or otherwise has the right to deny holding a marriage service if they so choose, I've never heard of one holding a service without "the power vested in me by the state of XX"

I'm intrigued to know where this might happen. It would offer some friends of mine an excellent repreive from the stodginess of MA.

[CamEdwards]

Render,

Tell them to come to Oklahoma. There are many churches in this state that will hold marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The one that comes to mind immediately is the Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City. They're a congregation of the United Church of Christ. The Unitarian Universalist churches might also marry same sex couples, but I can't be sure.

Again, it's a religious ceremony only: no civil benefits, but for the purposes of talking about abstinence, it's much more valid than a civil ceremony.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Outside of wackos like Fred Phelps (who don't represent the views of mainstream Christians), I think you'd find that the vast majority of churches wouldn't condone ANY celebratory and continual acts of sin. It's kind of funny that you say that churches are more forgiving of fornication, considering the original subject of this thread was abstinence.

I'm not asking the church to celebrate something they think is sinful. I'm just asking them to be consistent and bar the doors to, say, children who are not completely obedient to their parents or people who have gambling or substance addictions or any other sin the way they bar entrance to people who are both homosexual and long for a committed relationship to God. I don't particularly care of the church wants to define homosexuality as sin. I'm just saying that they need to be consistent in their exclusion of sinners, otherwise they're merely being bigoted.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm not asking the church to celebrate something they think is sinful. I'm just asking them to be consistent and bar the doors to, say, children who are not completely obedient to their parents or people who have gambling or substance addictions or any other sin the way they bar entrance to people who are both homosexual and long for a committed relationship to God. I don't particularly care of the church wants to define homosexuality as sin. I'm just saying that they need to be consistent in their exclusion of sinners, otherwise they're merely being bigoted.

Drake,

I imagine if a homosexual went to a church and said "I know it's a sinful act and I'm struggling with homosexuality, please help me", they wouldn't be turned away. That's far different than those who would say "this is who I am and I'm not changing, so you better accept me."

I don't know how often you go to church, but in my experience those who are openly and willfully sinning without any remorse or repentence are probably going to get talked to by other members of the congregation and/or the clergy.

Yes, I speak from experience. No, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Noble, the only thing I'd like to say to that is this:

The Bible is only as good as your own interpretation of it. What I would hope all people would come to realize is that whatever your beliefs, they are yours and yours alone, and you have no right or priviledge to foist them on another person.

The beginning of the thread developed into a reaction to what some people Interpreted as another way that Christianity is attempting to persecute Homosexuals because of the difference in their beliefs. Wether that was the intent (which I doubt it was by the girl) or not, the fact remains that homosexuals ARE persecuted. I fail to understand or accept anyone's religion trying to tell me that that is acceptable behaviour.

I accept that I am not going to sway christians in this because they are told to believe what they believe and are threatened with "hell" if they go against it. They choose to follow that faith for whatever personal reasons. What I will never accept is the outright discrimination of a group of people for their beliefs. Christians ought to have a clue about that, but sometimes I think they've forgotten.

Rende, your self-absorbed arrogance needs a response. It is NOT up to YOU, Mr. Nazi, to determine WHO should believe in WHAT! (Among others that would agree with YOUR point of view, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, just to name a few!)
When you state that the church can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't discriminate against YOUR particular Sin-of-Choice, what your really saying is that you can believe anything you want as long as YOU YOURSELF are not offended by it.

Fact is, they very nature of the church IS TO (listen carefully here) DISCRIMNATE against SIN, but in the process offer a way OUT of sin thru Christ (Love the sinner, Hate the sin), really could not be much simpler, but really does show the depth of your own personal intolerance and bigotry towards people practicing their faith.

[Butter]

Hey, Bubba, WHY don't YOU give it a REST?

[Maple Leafs]

I actually find this sort of debate to be interesting. I find that when both sides know their stuff and stick to relevant arguments, I can learn a lot even though I may not agree with everything that's said. On that note... man, this has been a disappointing thread.

Two questions, one for each side:

To the relgious: could you go into more detail about how you'd answer the claim that Christians are selective in their interpretation of the bible, condeming homesexuality at every opportunity but ignoring other "sins"?

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Drake,

I imagine if a homosexual went to a church and said "I know it's a sinful act and I'm struggling with homosexuality, please help me", they wouldn't be turned away. That's far different than those who would say "this is who I am and I'm not changing, so you better accept me."

I'd agree with that assessment, Cam, and would also go so far as to say that this would apply to any sin in any church.

I don't know how often you go to church, but in my experience those who are openly and willfully sinning without any remorse or repentence are probably going to get talked to by other members of the congregation and/or the clergy.

Agree here also, at least if the church is doing their job.

My concern is that when the church decides to be so vocally anti-homosexual that they practice an intimidating exclusion that doesn't even let people in the doors. That's the part that seems wrong to me. By today's church logic, Jesus should have excluded Matthew the Tax Collector from his circle of disciples -- and I fully suspect that Tax Collectors (as agents of Rome, essentially) were just as reviled in first century Palestine as homosexuals are by right-wing Xians today. Notice that the Bible doesn't state Tax Collecting was a sin, but I'm positive that most of the Jews would have told you that it was.

I think Jesus picked Matthew specifically as an argument for inclusion. The fact of the matter is that no one is worthy of salvation. I spend every day of my life screwing up and living within myself and generally doing things that God doesn't want me to do. I'm a sinner, and no matter how hard I try not to be, I still sin. I'm terribly thankful that even though I'm weak, Grace still abounds. It just sort of makes me feel foolish that I should ever attempt to deny that Grace to anyone else because I dare to deem them unworthy.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Hey, Bubba, WHY don't YOU give it a REST?

LOL, is my excersize of free speech making lil Butter-boy unhappy? Poor lil Butter-boy, go see momma and she make it all better fo you