Opening that religious can of worms again...

Remove all ads!

OK you're both scaring me now. Big B I'd like to think on your point but can't make out what it is your are actually trying to point out. The example you give makes no sense to me. "If I perceive that homosexuals use genetics as an excuse because I hear and see many people say this, that homosexuals really do?" It looks like there are some words missing from this sentence, as it stands, the final clause makes no sense.

Capstone you're comments just go to prove what a negative perception the religious community can create. Bring back the inquisition huh and let's start burning some witches while we're at it. Let me respond to your points in order:

"it just depends on what your absolute is. For me, the Bible is Truth" OK I believe that you should be able to believe in what you want to so long as it causes no suffering for others. So believe absolutely in the bible if you like, though I worry about the way your views make others feel badly about themselves (yes I am aware that I am doing the same to you but no one else seemed willing to defend homosexuality - sorry). I am sure that you will have heard this argument before but here it is anyway, just in case.

Which version of the bible do you believe in? http://www.google.com/search?q=bible+information+editions+history

I guess you are aware that the original would have been compiled in the language used by its writers Hebrew most likely. I am equally sure you realise that these originals have been re-translated countless times over the last 2000 (plus the rest for the old Testament) years. Now even if you accept that the originals were written by men interpreting god's views, do you believe that every translation since has also been so blessed. Do you not think that personal agendas might have been involved, or that the church might have made it appropriate to the needs of the time, or that simple errors might have crept in. In fact do you even fully understand the language used in the version you read today. Personally I struggle with much of it and know that lots of the words used have changed their meaning through the years. If you multiply these changes in meanings, and allow for the various translation errors, how closely do you think what you read today matches the original intent?

Anyway, as I said, I respect your desire to believe in a bible even though I think you are misguided to do so absolutely without question. I would also suggest that if it is such a important pat of your life you might consider doing some research into it - perhaps hunt down the earliest version you can find and do you're own translations.

Genetics - I agree with you that there is not yet convincing proof that homosexuality is linked to genetics. I also believe that many homosexuals are not influenced my their genetics. Perhaps though, a lack of convincing proof is partly explained by the pointlessness versus cost of conducting such research. However, despite this, I have seen articles showing a link between genetic factors and homosexual behaviour in animals and so I see no reason why the same is not true for humans. A quick search of the Internet found a Gene database that lists the homosexual gene and a scientific article "indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."
http://bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il/cards-bin/carddisp?HMS1&search=homosexuality&suff=txt http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract

For a range of views check:
http://www.gdb.org/gdb-bin/genera/genera/hgd/GenomicSegment?!action=query&displayName=HMS1

So where will you stand if further proof is discovered. Will you stand by your view that the bible is clear on this, homosexuality is wrong, God is lovely so the research is wrong (in that case I suppose you still believe that Darwin is wrong too) or I stand by the bible, homosexuality is wrong, the research shows the link therefore God obviously enjoys creating something and then punishing it for a laugh.

"A 'bit' harsh" on homosexuality transmitting aids. Does this mean you are one of the people who believe that aids is God's way of wreaking vengeance on homosexuality. If so God has cocked up badly. I suggest you visit some aids awareness sites and bring your frighteningly biased views up-to-date. Let me quote some details from the latest statistics I found through another quick search:
http://www.aegis.com/factshts/niaid/2000/niaid2000_fact_sheet_aidsstat.html

"80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse"
"Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women"

Besides being homosexual does not cause aids. Acting 'carelessly' encourages aids and so it is extremely arrogant to suggest that homosexuality harms people. Perhaps we should also condemn all practicing heterosexuals as heterosexual sex is the leading cause of Gonorrhea, a diesese that affects more people in the US than Aids. Anyway, even if you do take the view that homosexuality = aids, you yourself have said that this only applies to male homosexuality so what about female homosexuality?


Finally food for thought - you seem to be suggesting that you believe in the bible as the only way to see the world. I have covered a few thoughts on that earlier but also consider this. How dangerous is it to believe completely in anything with no questions at all. Once you stop considering alternative views, is what you are left with 'faith' or just blind unthinking obedience? What would your Lord want and lets just remember that he gave you free choice (or there would be no sin in the first place). You might also like to remember that one religious community believed in the bible so much that they refused to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the son of God. If God was to send a new messenger to earth, who had a message different to that contained in your version of the bible, would you turn him away?


PS if my comments have offended anyone I sincerely apologies. It is not my intent to do so and I am not attempting to belittle people's religious beliefs. My concern is that this thread seemed to be developing into an anti homosexual piece and I will not stand by while people unfairly attack others.

 

Slappy, I'm offended and will be taking my business elsewhere

Seriously ... we could go round & round on this, and probably will

One thing I can clear up ... "Which version of the Bible do you believe in?"

Without going into minutia ... Evangelical Christians believe that the original manuscripts (the autographa) are inspired. These have been translated and handed down, a process that has allowed a few errors to creep in. However, we can trace the 95% of the New Testament back to the 2nd Century, and with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been able to verify that the Old Testament has been handed down accurately as well. (we can talk about this more later)

So now we have many translations, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the King James, the New American Standard (Not to mention the old American Standard), etc, etc, ad nausium.

You will find a quack or two who holds that his/her translation is the ONLY acceptable one, but they will honestly be mistaken/deluded/a few frys short of a happy meal.

Now, have I accepted this without questioning it? NOT!!!

I've studied Greek & Hebrew. I have looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls and compared the fragments to the versions of Isaiah and Psalms that we have. I have read late 1st & early 2nd Century Greek texts and compared them to the writings of Paul, John & Matthew to see if there are similarities in language or style that would support the theory that these books were written well after Jesus lived, and found that theory to be wanting.

Recently, I've even thrown my entire Biblical Worldview to the wind, thinking that the frustrations and conflict that pursuing that "truth" has lead me into were not worth the risk. By throwing it away, I've discovered that the "truth" in question is indeed the only "TRUTH" that is coherent and not only does it translate well from Greek into English, it translates from page into action!

 

Slappy, you suggested some reading for others, allow me to do the same for you:

Try reading medical research about the physical effects of anal sex. There is absolutely no way that one can argue that it is natural. The blood supply to the anus is shielded by a very thin wall (unlike the uterus, which is designed to handle such intrusion), and the trauma of inserting a penis into it invariably causes it to bleed. This is what leads to the overwhelming majority of HIV infection, according to every critical study I've seen. I think the 80% you refer to was the percentage of GROWTH of AIDS cases, which is indeed growing faster in the hetereosexual community than among homosexuals. Then again, keep in mind that those results are based on self-identification and that it's more than likely that many of those claiming to be exclusively heterosexual actually contracted the virus from homosexual activity. Men almost always contract the disease through homosexual contract. Women almost always catch it through heterosexual activity.

It's better to talk about these things as facts than to make claims about the other side being evil or intolerant -- which I hope is not happening.

 

Sorry Slappy, here is what I was trying to convey:

If I were to believe that homosexuals use genetics as an excuse for their condition, and feel that my belief is justified becuase I hear and see many people say this, that I am right and homosexuals do use genetics as an excuse? Perhaps my perception of outside influences is clouding my mind from the truth.

In comparison to what you've been standing beside while defending homosexuals:

If I were to believe that God is cruel and hardly seems to fit the description of a loving Lord, because I hear and see people with diseases suffer and Christains qouting various translated portions of the Bible and arguing amongst themselves, that I am right and God is cruel and enjoys the suffering of mankind. Perhaps my perception of outside influences is clouding my mind from the truth.

In both examples perception is seperate from reality. Just because you percieve something a certain way, does not mean it is that way. Like I said, we have finite minds trying to comprehend and infinite being, it's not easy and may people mess up both Christains and the rest of the World.

Please do not shoulder disease on God. Point the finger at Satan and mankind. Satan led us astray and Jesus was sent to led us back, God is taking an active hand is this matter, but it is important to realize our "time" is not on the same level of someone who is infinite. 2000 years to us could be a blink of an eye to God.

As for getting back to the orignal translations, the gift that I am asking for Christmas this year from my family is a computer program that contains many of the original texts and how to accurately translate them. I am definatley excited about learning this. I understand that translation can lead to meanings other than what was intended. But don't let something as silly as that be what stops you from believing in God and trusting Him.

 

Hi Mat, glad to see you are still around I had heard some worrying rumours about work etc . Interested to see your comments on the bible though am still skeptical about the accuracy of all of the content. But anyway see my final point about interpreting the content.

Shralp, thanks for the hint though I'm disappointed that you didn't actually provide specific links I am aware of the details you describe and will admit that from a simple biological perspective, male homosexuality is 'not natural'. I wasn't aware that I had argued it was. However, many of the things that we do as humans are equally not 'natural' and anal sex is not limited to homosexuals anyway. So this is not really an argument I want to get into. (/me wonders if anyone is going to come up with something that affects female homosexuality). As to your comments about the AIDS statistics I provided links to. No the stats I quoted are as written, the 80% is not growth but total. Perhaps you are confused by older statistics or perhaps US only stats which may be biased towards homosexuality. However, I do agree with your 'self-identification' issue and as an ex-academic I am always healthy suspicious of most statistics. However, my main point was that it was wrong to claim that Homosexuality = AIDS or, even worse, was God's punishment.

To Big B, I think I see what you are getting at but it sounds suspiciously like- homosexuality is wrong don't worry about why or get confused by details just trust in God. OK that is a sort of forgiving attitude but it doesn't help homosexual Christians feeling guilty about their feelings towards members of the same sex.

Anyway, I suppose at this point it would be helpful to return to the original post in this topic. There are lots of things in the bible that most people would consider ludicrous today (can I just also add my favorite, the stuff about sex should only be used for making babies). So what I suppose I would really like to know is, do the people who condemn homosexuality on the grounds that the bible forbids it also spend as much time condemning people who commit other 'sins' described within its pages. For example, you must know heterosexuals couples who make love to each purely because they love each other. Do you make these people feel guilty and shameful for defying Gods law?

So in summary anyone who chastises 'everyone they know for committing 'any' transgression against 'anything' in the bible, I can respect as people committed to their personal faith (although I feel that they might be misguided). However, anyone who preaches against homosexuality while paying less attention to other areas (such as those in the original list) distresses me and I have to conclude that they must be particularly biased against homosexuality and are hypocritically using religion to cover up their prejudice.

Anyway, this debate has depressed me enough as it is. I hadn't realised that Sorcerers was such an anti-homosexual site. I think I need to find somewhere a little more tolerate and forgiving towards others.

 

Slappy!!! Put on the brakes!!! Don't go anywhere until given permission

I, for one, do count homosexuality as a sin. I also count lust as a sin. Therefore I see myself and the homosexual standing on equal footing before God. My place isn't to judge (as in who is worse) my place is to preach grace.

I preach grace to myself and to the homosexual equally.

We are not defined by our sins. We are defined by our status as individuals before God. If we ever have a chance to meet, you will find me to be one of the most tolerent people you've encountered. I am stong in what I believe, but very open and willing to accept anyone regardless of color, orientation, piercing, etc.

I honestly don't think I could have this level of tolerance and acceptance if I didn't have the firm footing of my beliefs under me.

 

It is not a sin to be homosexual. It is a sin to consumate the desire for homosexual contact. Some people just are attracted to members of the same sex, and mental conditioning had to be used to change their mindset.

As far as tolerance...I am not tolerant. Sorry, it's just the way I am. I have never considered being attracted to another man. I have had many opportunities to have sex with women, but I have always curbed that desire, because I believe that it is a gift to be shared only by a married couples.

In the Bible, it states that the sexual union between two people must occur only during marriage. Homosexual couples are not allowed to marry, so I cannot accept such a union. As far as the use of sex for child bearing only, that rule is not as stringent any more. In fact, there are entire books written on the union between man and woman for Catholic couples. It would be kind of ridiculous to expect couples to not have pleasure during sexual relations.

 

Yeah Slappy don't go anywhere or do anything rash. You've always be one of my favorite people on the boards. We just have to remember that everyone has different opnions. No one may completely agree but everyone can listen to and respect it and offer rebuttals of course . Peace.

 

Why is it that simply because someone believes something is wrong they are judged intolerant?

Can I believe anything is wrong? Is that ok? Of course.

We're talking in the abstract here. If we were talking about some particular homosexual and people rushed in to condemn him, urge his departure, etc, then that would be truly an evil intolerance.

But simply because I believe something is wrong does not mean I am intolerant towards individuals I know. As Math and others have pointed out, we all sin.

Sure, if we go by the dictionary definition of intolerance, then those who think homosexuality is wrong are intolerant. But so are those who think anything is wrong. And so are those who cannot tolerate a handful of posters condemning homosexuality and who therefore threaten to leave a web site.

I agree that one shouldn't make claims like "AIDS is God's pubishment to homosexuals." Obviously, it's not. If that was your only point, then we're square.

I brought up the "natural" argument because of the question of genetics in homosexuality. The homosexual argument is usually that it is natural for them to behave as they do because it is dictated by genetics.

I hope you don't leave these boards for something like this disagreement.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited October 25, 2001).]

 

Well I'm working very hard so I don't have much time for this but a very short summary of my christan opinion:

- Homosexuality is not like it should be, God created a men and wife for each other and not two men or women. Another goal was to multiply, and that is not possible with two men

- Homosexuality came in the world cause of the people left God and became sinners.

- God didn't find out homosexuality, and it was not like God wanted it. So we have to fight against it. Christians accept gays, but they should fight it and never have sex or marriage with another man. They can be sure that also this feeling will be gone in the new perfect world where we live furth after JEsus's return!

 

About this "naturalness" argument; putting aside that things like chemotherapy aren't natural either here's a quote I rather like:

"Let's set the existence of God issue aside for a later volume and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored. Most of them failed and their genetic legacy was erased from the universe forever,but a few found a way to survive and to propogate......

"It got Lawrence to thinking. From an evolution standpoint, what was the point of having people around who were not inclined to have offspring? There must be some good, and fairly subtle, reason for it.

"The only thing that he could work out was that it was groups of people -- societeis -- rather than individual creatures, who were trying to outreproduce and/or kill each other, and that, in a society, there was plenty of room for someone who didn't have kids as long as he was up to something useful."

The homosexual who caused Lawrence's pondering above by the way was Alan Turing who is widely credited with inventing the computer. He did so after gaining the help of Wittgenstein is solving some particularly difficult mathematical and logical problems. Witggenstein by the way also happened to be homosexual. Maybe there is something to this thought that from an evolution stadpoint it is species that evolve and not individuals and there is a lot of room for variation within a species, indeed, such variation is an asset.