Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Bible quotes for knuckleheads
franciscan - again you are demonstrating a bit of immaturity but >>>
picking up on the general sentiment of your comment I won't club you over the head this time. (you can thank me later) The discussion has been about sexual preference and I have also made attempts to differentiate between sexual preference and sexual behavior as they are clearly different things in many instances. In this type of discussion and with the use of these terms, sex itself is unduly magnified as being the most important aspect when it is not. Sex only holds a magnified importance to young people, living one's life in a loving and rewarding relationship far supersedes the importance of sex as people grow older. (the old saying . . . but can she cook?) For the purpose of procreation, human bodies were clearly designed with the corresponding male and female parts but to use this as an argument to suggest that homosexuality is wrong also suggests that sex is only for procreation. Are you telling us that you only do the hibbidy dibbidy when you are planning to have a baby? Are you also suggesting that all other seemingly unnatural forms of sexual stimulation should be considered as wrong as you feel that homosexuality is? Must all forms of sexual stimulation and gratification meet with your approval? Keep in mind that sex itself is merely one of the foundations of loving companionship and even this is not true in all relationships, where sex may be non existent or other factors may be more important to the individuals.
As we consider these other types of relationships, we can make a list of arrangements that commonly take place within our society that we do not give a second thought to. Marriages of convenience comes to mind immediately, the combining of resources for economic reasons or simply to not be lonely. The problem that we run into in attempting to render homosexuality as invalid is that we are now attempting to determine who should be able to become companions with whom. And yet again, lesbians get a bye simply because their form of same sex gratification is not near as disgusting to us heterosexual males, as male same sex gratification is.
It's a shame that you ended your comment with another attempt at slippery slope arguments. We are speaking of the acceptance of those with differing sexual preferences, to suggest that this acceptance opens the door to anything else that is unrelated is a groundless contention.
posted by
gomedome
on June 23, 2006 at 9:14 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome,
My response wasn't to the general debate but about your comment about sexual preferences denied. You're relativist badge is shining pretty strongly here with homosexuality posts. I wish I had more time to read all of your posts and attempt to argue finer points. [Not that I'd be any good at it. You're very good at what you do]. [and you sure do crank out the columns. Mazeltov]. So let me just say some general stuff if you don't mind. Sometimes we just have to go with our common sense. No Bible needed here. Most people on this planet can tell from their God given intellligence where a man's ejaculate is supposed to proceed to. We know how we get babies. Couples grow in love for each other through lovemaking.The ejaculate goes into the vagina. Sex is a gift from God. We sure in the hell know what the function of an anus is. But if you're desires are askew your mind may follow the askewness and try to justify it. [Yes, I'm guilty to]. Does it make any sense that a penis goes into the place where we defecate? Of course it doesn't. But if you're a relativist it's easy to hide behind "Whose to say?"
If there's no absolute truth then people start saying it's okay to have sex with whomever and whatever they want.
posted by
franciscan
on June 23, 2006 at 7:42 PM
| link to this | reply
franciscan -- now you are just demonstrating your immature ignorance
This debate has been entirely about consenting adults. You disparage the innocent of the gay community by including beastiality and pedaphilia and do so without giving it even minor consideration.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 8:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome,
Lord, spare us from those whose sexual preferences are for children, sheep and watermelon.
posted by
franciscan
on June 22, 2006 at 7:59 PM
| link to this | reply
franciscan - that perspective might work for you
But I would hate to be the person having to deny my own sexual preferences to satisfy some religious doctrine and a heterosexual majority.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Yo gome and pkcricket,
Homosexuality as an orientation is fine. No sin there. As an activity it's a mortal sin.
In Romans Saint Paul talks about practicing homosexuals.
posted by
franciscan
on June 22, 2006 at 6:55 PM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - I think that everyone has made their position clear on this
I wonder however if any person that holds the position that another person is a sinner based on religious beliefs, (beliefs that the other person may or may not hold), understands how ludicrous this is. There are things that are clearly wrong in life, that our inherent decency tells us that we should hold in disdain and as caring people, even take steps to change if we can. Unfortunately, the sexual preferences of another member of society is not one of those things. For one group to develop and proliferate a hostile environment towards any segment of our society because they feel that members of that group are sinners, even though they are not breaking any laws, is something that no one has a right to do. Insistence on doing this is only attempting to force others to live their lives by your beliefs. In that I fully understand the plight of the gay community in their struggle for full societal acceptance.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 2:28 PM
| link to this | reply
BlackPearl1 - the discussions of prohibited foods makes me howl with
laughter between the shedding of tears for humanity.
We North Americans cannot be that obtuse can we? There is a very small segment of the world's populace that has the luxury of choosing what they want to eat. At least 1/2 of the world's people eat foods determined by economics and availability. Starvation still exists on this planet. How fallible would a God be to impose such restrictions?
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 12:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Wow, gomedome,
Such interesting commentary you've sprouted here. I've read the comments and they are all interesting, particularly because as you can see, even Christians express different points of view and interpretations. I'm a relatively new reader to your blog, so I'm wondering, do you ever read and comment on passages from the New Testament? Somewhere in the book of Matthew, (I believe), Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out. Of course, that's somewhat of a paraphrase, but just wanted to add another two cents to the pot. I'm sure this pot is on the back burner by now, but I'd be interested to read what other Christians and non-Christians think of that. I'm always intrigued by the do not eat certain foods argument because I'm familiar with teachings from the Old and New Testaments. I eat some of everything, and I pray over all of it, considering it blessed by the grace of God, for me to even have it. That's just me, though.
As for the homosexuals, sure, I have my own thoughts and opinions on that, many religiously rooted, but I judge not, lest I be judged. Sin is sin is sin. No matter who or what, we all come short of His glory.
posted by
BlackPearl1
on June 22, 2006 at 12:48 PM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket
regarding the acfts passage and thge meat sacrificed to idols
Paul later said in an epistle (if you remember) that there really was no problem with meat sacrificed to idols -- the sacrifice meant nothing really --
but you bring up the connection here.
both the problem with meat sacrificed to idols and homosexuality stemmed from the same source: parties given by the rich and influential. The host paid the local temple for the meat that had been sacrificed there -- just about the only way to eat meat was to atten these parties -- and if you wanted to get ahead in the Greek society,attending the parties was a necessity. At these parties homosexuality was virtually forced on people -- you either went along or you were basically an outcast.
now, compared to today. a couple enters into a loving relationship; the sex is consensual. the relationship can grow and improve as time goes by.
the contrast, I think, is obvious.
New testament writers were not talking about a loving, consensual relationsihp, but about the homosexuality they saw at the time.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 22, 2006 at 12:06 PM
| link to this | reply
I understand
wanting to bow out if you feel your emotions are getting too involved. But if we're guilty of not wanting to understand your point, you are just as guilty of not wanting to understand ours. You see, everyone has come to their conclusions based on their experiences and based on that, everyone believes they are right. Open minded discussion is the only way to see that another's experience might be valid even if you've never experienced it. Am I always open minded on this issue? No, because I've done the hard work of years and years of spiritual and self-exploration; because I have lived your beliefs and at your age, I might have used similar arguments.
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 22, 2006 at 12:01 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm tired of discussing this. Not because I don't think my position on it is valid, but because I'm explaining it in a way that can be understood, but you do not want to understand it, so therefore, you will not. Or you just want it to come out that way you want to hear it. I'm tired of trying to be objective and civil (I have my limits too). So rather than continue on and risk getting upset with someone, I am going to stop and just leave it as is. Thanks. Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 22, 2006 at 11:37 AM
| link to this | reply
It's okay for some people to keep returning to sin but not others?
That's handy for the group that makes up the rules and makes sure they include themselves in the ones that are allowed to sin all the want because of grace. I like this. I'm going to incorporate it into my church. Thanks Cricket.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on June 22, 2006 at 11:05 AM
| link to this | reply
cricket
I have to be honest and say that your argument makes absolutely no logical sense to me... and I was a born-again Christian for 20 years or more so I know the verses and I know the thinking. I'll leave it there or I might be accused of "using your words against you."
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 22, 2006 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger...
I feel like tis discussion is being run into the ground. I am repeating myself on multiple boards and as people come in mid-discussion, the same questions and comments are made and I have to reiterate what I've already said. Here's what I wrote to Xeno-x in response to his comment:
I do eat pork, but then again, and I hesitate using these words b/c if I know you, and I don't really, you may try to use them against me,it's culturally acceptable. BUT, pork is probably one of the worst meats a person can eat, that along with horse and others. Some of the laws in Leviticus, when broken, are met with death (according to the Law), others are answered with sacrifice. I do not eat shellfish or bottom dwellers, not just because I don't altogether like the taste or texture, but because God said not to. The laws of food are good outlines for healthy and better living. In the New Testament, there was a debate as to whether the new Gentile converts to Christianity should have to adhere to all the statutes of the Law or if it was ok for them not to, since they were covered by grace. It was determined, though, that they should adhere to these things:
"that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 15:29
Now, in this statement from the Council of Jerusalem, eating certain meats is not included, except concerning how it was killed...but homosexuality is included in the sexual immorality...it was a common practice in the temples to participate in sexual acts and call it "worship", and some of those acts were homosexual in nature. Cricket ><>
Now, I will say this, the punishments for certain sins are different than for others because of the severity of the crime. ALL sin separates us from God. ALL sin leads to death. But NOT ALL sins lead to the same consequences here on earth. We see it in the Law...some sins can be covered by a sacrifice of an animal (these are sins of accidence)...but others require the death of the person committing it, because they are willful acts. Now, when I say we are in the age of grace, I do not mean that all are free and have access to forgiveness. This is only for believers. When someone becomes a Christian, they receive a new nature. If they have truly been saved, they will no longer want to commit these willful acts of sin. YET, just because we have a new nature does not mean will never sin again. I sin every day, and I'm thankful that God has granted me forgiveness for my sins. I work hard not to sin willfully against God, but I do. And when it happens, I repent (I turn from that sin). Some sins, I turn back to over and over, but I try not to. Paul says, "do not sin all the more just because there is grace." There is a difference... Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 22, 2006 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Jumping in...
Cricket, I don't think you understand the point gomedome was trying to make. I don't think he ever said anything about unforgivable sin. But what you seem to be saying is that you can do pretty much what you want, ask for forgiveness and you're good. If that's the case, then homosexuals should be able to continue to do what they do, ask for forgiveness, and all is hunky dory. The Christian community should see their sins as no more flagrant than gluttony, eating pork or shellfish, etc. Strangely, I've never seen Christians protesting outside a meat packing plant about the pork that is about to be unleashed on the community. But Jesus says, according to your bible, "Go and sin no more." Therefore, you should stop eating pork, stop eating shellfish, stone people, etc., that is if you're going to base what a sin is on Leviticus AND follow Jesus' teachings.
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 22, 2006 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm honored that you chose me as a topic for your blog. Let me explain further (which I thought was fully explained in my posts) that I do not view homoesexuality as an
unforgiveable sin. I simply said it was a sin. Now, according to the Law mentioned in Leviticus, the penalty for sins is death. Plain and simple. BUT, we are in the Age of grace, covered by the blood of Jesus (should you choose to accept it). This means, that we can ask for forgiveness for a sin and by the grace of God and His mercy, He will forgive us because Jesus bore the penalty for our sins, by His death. I know, I know, I KNOW I've said this before, but it keeps being overlooked. Sin is sin. It separates us from God. According to the Law, the penalty is death (separation from God). BUT, since Jesus died and rose again, we have an escape from the wrath of God and a path for reconciliation with Him. Thanks again! Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 22, 2006 at 9:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome....
Yup, theat's what makes me crazy! When you bring up all the lunacy in the bible they get defensive and change the subject! I think I'll go and check the bible for more of those revelations! I need a good laugh today! Thanks for getting the ball rolling! LOL 
posted by
RckyMtnActivist
on June 22, 2006 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
SuccessWarrior - I like the prohibition against pork
Considering that every person born in Canada eats Back Bacon, I guess our entire nation is going straight to hell. Not to mention that pork is the major daily protein supplement for almost 50% of the world's population. Yet every once in awhile I get someone who lives in a society where they have the luxury of choosing what to eat, tell me that the pork prohibition is still in effect. They better not come to Canada.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply
RckyMtnActivist - and just to be fair
I stayed within the same chapter of Leviticus. The other chapters of Leviticus offer much better lunacy and have better entertainment value. You will see that there will not be one rebuttal in these comments from those who are guilty of this selective reasoning. They are happy to use this hypocritical approach to condemn others but they are unable to justify their actions.
posted by
gomedome
on June 22, 2006 at 8:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome......
What great comparisons! Yup, pretty F...ing ricidulous! Religious people make me crazy!
posted by
RckyMtnActivist
on June 22, 2006 at 8:33 AM
| link to this | reply
The trick is to just use the passages that support your own agenda
and throw the rest of them out.
Hey Gome, if you come across something that prohibits certain foods, let me know because I'm making new rules for my church.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on June 22, 2006 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply