Re: The ol'

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Christianity and Homosexuality Discussi Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chris H. on July 12, 19102 at 04:43:34:

In Reply to: Re: The ol' posted by X on July 11, 19102 at 14:18:51:

: >>> since we KNOW that some kinds of loving, long-term relationships are clearly wrong.<<<

: >>>Oh? What types of relationships would those be? And are there scriptures to support you?<<<

Well, I figured it would be obvious that having a relationship with your 12-year-old neighbour would be wrong, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say it. But according to your criteria, because it's a loving, long-term relationship, there's nothing wrong with it. Why would you accept a long-term loving relationship with two men and deny a long-term loving relationship between a man and a young girl? Same with having relationships with dogs. That can be long-term and loving, can't it?

: >>> IF you are saying that observing behaviour in nature is the factor that makes it ok with God, *I* am saying that you're opening
: the door to killing, stealing, and adultery, because we can observe all those in nature. IF you are saying that long-term loving
: relationships is the factor that makes it ok with God, then you're opening the door to incest, buggery, and beastiality -- as long
: as they take place within a loving long-term relationship.<<<

: >>>Not at all. humans cannot have loving relationships with animals, its just not possible, and we arent even talking about creatures of two different species. >>>

This is exactly the same argument the old-style "anti-gays" use. Men can't have loving relationships with men, it's just not possible, they're two different sexes. Just as homosexuals started to come out and say men CAN have loving relationships, so will people who want to have sex with dogs. And they'll do it in the name of God. What argument are you going to use to prevent them that I have not already tried to use in this very debate?

And..by the way...people DO love their animals. Some people have sex with them, probably more than we think. And I can't see for a moment why you're declaring that a man can be in love a man and have sex with a man and marry a man -- but (gasp!) not a dog and not a young girl. Explain your criteria why one is ok and the other two are not. I want you to explain this because, if you try and are clear-headed and honest, you will see that exactly the same arguments that homosexuals use today could easily be used by a man and his dog tomorrow, or a man and his daughter the next week.

If you look at it the other way, you have utterly no arguments to counter my assertion that God thinks male sex with an animal, AND a young girl, AND another man are all wrong.

<<<<: your incest argument could be considered valid only in the loving argument sence... but not in sexual preference.>>>>>

I don't really know what you mean here. You haven't really provided a counter-argument, or reason why my argument is invalid. It's not enough to simply state something is invalid.

<<<<: My point was to show that homosexuality is a biological trait that the animals do not choose. Stealing (stealing food) is not a biological trait, it is a choice that some animals make. It is stretching it to say that these life-long relationships were between two straight animals... that doesnt make any sense. The animals choose to kill their young, and choose to steal food... but obviously they do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex and its obviously not animal lust since its lifelong, so I do not find your counter to be valid.>>>>

The distinction between what is biologically determined behaviour and what chosen behaviour in wild animals is an irrelevant distinction in relation to my point. In a human, the urge to steal or drink or cheat or holler when one doesn't get one's way CANNOT be considered a choice. How can one chose to have an urge? The BEHAVIOUR is a choice, but not the urge to commit the behaviour. Earlier, you said no one was born with alcholism -- but if that's the case, who would choose it? And scientists have most definately detected genetic similarities in people who have addictions.

So...it's the same with homosexuals. They don't choose their orientation any more than they choose how big their toes are, I would expect. I don't have a problem with you on that point. But here's where we differ: you're saying that BECAUSE homosexuals don't choose their own orientation, it can't be wrong in God's eyes. But that logic doesn't apply to alcholics: no one chooses to be an alcoholic (who would choose that??), but it's still wrong to go on a bender and drink your savings into oblivion. Actually -- properly speaking, most people in AA would say it's not the URGE to drink that got them into trouble, it's the drinking itself. They can live with the urge, but they can't live with the drinking. (This is why people who argue about 1 Corinthians 6:9 often forget that Paul's unique choice of words distinguishes between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour -- but that's another debate topic, let's not get off this one for a moment).

So, the idea that anything that we were born with must be ok with God because we do not choose it -- well, that idea has to be wrong. We're born with a sinful nature, aren't we? Did anyone on earth choose their sinful nature? Of course not. If they did, wouldn't there be some people who chose NOT to have a sinful nature? So everyone has it, and everyone was born with it, so just because you're born with something doesn't mean God thinks it's great.

Now here's the clincher. Many Christians argue (or should argue) that homosexuality is just another feature of a sinful nature. For some people, it's the urge to drink; others, lie, or cheat; perhaps for others it's heteroseuxal addiction or womanizing or whatever. Now, keep in mind, we ALL have it, so if a homosexual arrogantly says "How DARE you compare my lifestyle to that of a cheater!", he's automatically raising himself above the status of other regular people that have a sinful nature. If he's not a cheater, he's something just as miserable, maybe even worse, even if it's not being gay. He's making himself BETTER than them. Now, here's the big big clincher: whenever someone says, when talking about a particular behaviour, that at least it's not as bad as being a "such-and-such", I usually suspect that it's that very thing that they're running from. And homosexuals do this all the time: they don't like to think of themselves and their lifestyle as reprehensible as cheaters or liars or alcholics. They think better of themselves.

: >>> You need to "explode" this argument of yours as well. If you believe that the bible's authority is subject to the authority of
: science, you must also believe that all of Jesus' miracles, especially raising Lazarus from the dead, plus his own resurrection,
: must either be fabrications, exaggerations, or mistakes. Science would clearly and loudly say that dead people cannot be raised
: after three days, no one can really walk on water, etc. etc. Of course, you must also believe that Christians have been subject
: to a mass deception the likes of which the world has never seen before or since, almost all Christians believe in these things
: which science would clearly say are impossible, or at the very least, not repeatable (which is the important test in scientific
: truth).<<<

<<<<: Not at all, because your definition of science is in accurate. Science means to obtain information through observation and testing. Miracles have been documented and Jesus' resurrection has enough evidence to be considered a historical fact.>>>>

I didn't define science, I said testability was a crucial factor in scientific confirmation. If a claim or a phenomenon can't be tested or repeated, then in science's eyes it can't really be true. You yourself rely constantly on scientific observation, but you can't do so with the very kernal of the Christian belief. So, you're claim that the Bible must be "tested" by science cannot be true, since the resurrection could never be tested by science. That's why we have this thing called "faith".

Another point: you can't actually be serious that Jesus' resurrection is considered to be an historical fact. Almost no one outside of Christendom believes in his resurrection at all! You think people disbelieve in Christianity, EVEN THOUGH Jesus himself performed a ton of miracles and was raised from the dead? People disbelieve --- both in his time and ours -- because they don't really believe any of that. Historians acknowledge that he lived and died, etc, but none of them take the resurrection as historical fact.

: <<<>>>

X, I personally know of seven gay men and women, here in Vancouver, that have changed. Four are married heterosexually and loving it. No one made them change, no one harassed them, gay harassment in this city is extremely rare and makes the front page when it happens. Now, the question is: why are you tormenting these people who have changed, saying it didn't really take, or it's in their heads, or otherwise casting doubt on it?

One of the major reason gay people may not even be attempting therapy is because they don't have any reason to. Gays enjoy unprecidented sympathy in the media and in the public eye, and restictions to gay lifestyle are disappearing at an incredibly fast rate. Most major North American cities throw them a parade every year. Why change? Change means giving up your lover and many of your friends, your hang-outs, etc, and -- with respect -- risking disrespect and doubt like the kind you provided above. Maybe therapies aren't working because others won't let them. But, in the end, it doesn't matter: the Christian attitude is that the orientation isn't the problem or the immediate need, it's the mindset and the behaviour.

<<<<: Even if the rest of the accounts were authentic and genuine, it is still a very low percentage which ignores the rest of the "patients" who have been severely* tormented by the "doctors" and their therapies; I mean, can you imagine some doctor trying to make you stop being attracted to women. Wouldnt that be extremely difficult for you?>>>>

It is no surprise this process of change is tormenting and painful. I haven't had to deal with changing my attraction to women, but I have with drugs. It's no walk in the park. Lots of gay people angrily claim that these orientation-switching therapies are reprehensible because they make people feel guilty, beat themselves up, make them hate themselves. What the HELL do gays think the rest of us are up to? Anybody who struggles with sinful behaviour must seek to change it, and none of us are exempt from the guilt-feeling side effects of going in to change what ails us. Such an attitude is openly hostile to pedophiles, who are humans too -- they get caught and spend a lifetime trying to change themselves, feeling guilty and full of self-loathing. Are homosexuals saying such people ought to just stop trying to change themselves, stop feeling guilty and depressed, and just accept who they are? Yeah, right. Under Jesus Christ, there IS no condemnation, so there needs to be no guilt. I've never met a homosexual that understood that. If a gay guy says he's trying to change himself but he's full of self-loathing all the time, I would say stop feeling guilty and keep on working to change, just like the rest of us are doing.

: >>> So, which is it? The bible, or science?<<<

: Well i'm affraid your question ignores how study after study has shown that the bible not just a book of "faith" but a book full of observed scientific facts.

<<<: To accept the bible on blind faith without putting it to the test is, as I said before, in my opinion, naive. I think that God would want us to put the bible to tests before just accepting it.>>>>

By all means, when you set up a test on the resurrection, drop me an e-mail. I want to see it, and I'll bring my video camera. In the meantime, I'm going to continue believing without putting it to the test.

<<<<: I mean science has shown that the earth is round.. if the bible said the earth was flat then clearly it would be wrong. But the bible never says the earth is flat, just as it never says it is wrong to be gay.>>>>>

Ohhh...X, my friend, you made a mess of this one, I'm afraid. Promise me you'll never write something like this in a philosophy paper, ok? I'm not even sure where to start. You're trying to show that the Bible is accurate because it didn't say something. Which is like saying: I got a letter from Gary today, who didn't say that he was 24 feet tall. He also didn't claim that killing is wrong. Since he was accurate because he didn't make the first claim, he must be accurate in all claims he doesn't make.

Ok...I'm getting snippy...I apologize. I guess it's time to say goodnight.

Chris

Follow Ups:

hello chris X 20:48:09 7/12/102 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : >>> since we KNOW that some kinds of loving, long-term relationships are clearly wrong.<<< : : >>>Oh? What types of relationships would those be? And are there scriptures to support you?<<< : Well, I figured it would be obvious that having a relationship with your 12-year-old neighbour would be wrong, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say it. But according to your criteria, because it's a loving, long-term relationship, there's nothing wrong with it. Why would you accept a long-term loving relationship with two men and deny a long-term loving relationship between a man and a young girl? Same with having relationships with dogs. That can be long-term and loving, can't it? : : >>> IF you are saying that observing behaviour in nature is the factor that makes it ok with God, *I* am saying that you're opening : : the door to killing, stealing, and adultery, because we can observe all those in nature. IF you are saying that long-term loving : : relationships is the factor that makes it ok with God, then you're opening the door to incest, buggery, and beastiality -- as long : : as they take place within a loving long-term relationship.<<< : : >>>Not at all. humans cannot have loving relationships with animals, its just not possible, and we arent even talking about creatures of two different species. >>> : This is exactly the same argument the old-style "anti-gays" use. Men can't have loving relationships with men, it's just not possible, they're two different sexes. Just as homosexuals started to come out and say men CAN have loving relationships, so will people who want to have sex with dogs. And they'll do it in the name of God. What argument are you going to use to prevent them that I have not already tried to use in this very debate? : And..by the way...people DO love their animals. Some people have sex with them, probably more than we think. And I can't see for a moment why you're declaring that a man can be in love a man and have sex with a man and marry a man -- but (gasp!) not a dog and not a young girl. Explain your criteria why one is ok and the other two are not. I want you to explain this because, if you try and are clear-headed and honest, you will see that exactly the same arguments that homosexuals use today could easily be used by a man and his dog tomorrow, or a man and his daughter the next week. : If you look at it the other way, you have utterly no arguments to counter my assertion that God thinks male sex with an animal, AND a young girl, AND another man are all wrong. : <<<<: your incest argument could be considered valid only in the loving argument sence... but not in sexual preference.>>>>> : I don't really know what you mean here. You haven't really provided a counter-argument, or reason why my argument is invalid. It's not enough to simply state something is invalid. : <<<<: My point was to show that homosexuality is a biological trait that the animals do not choose. Stealing (stealing food) is not a biological trait, it is a choice that some animals make. It is stretching it to say that these life-long relationships were between two straight animals... that doesnt make any sense. The animals choose to kill their young, and choose to steal food... but obviously they do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex and its obviously not animal lust since its lifelong, so I do not find your counter to be valid.>>>> : The distinction between what is biologically determined behaviour and what chosen behaviour in wild animals is an irrelevant distinction in relation to my point. In a human, the urge to steal or drink or cheat or holler when one doesn't get one's way CANNOT be considered a choice. How can one chose to have an urge? The BEHAVIOUR is a choice, but not the urge to commit the behaviour. Earlier, you said no one was born with alcholism -- but if that's the case, who would choose it? And scientists have most definately detected genetic similarities in people who have addictions. : So...it's the same with homosexuals. They don't choose their orientation any more than they choose how big their toes are, I would expect. I don't have a problem with you on that point. But here's where we differ: you're saying that BECAUSE homosexuals don't choose their own orientation, it can't be wrong in God's eyes. But that logic doesn't apply to alcholics: no one chooses to be an alcoholic (who would choose that??), but it's still wrong to go on a bender and drink your savings into oblivion. Actually -- properly speaking, most people in AA would say it's not the URGE to drink that got them into trouble, it's the drinking itself. They can live with the urge, but they can't live with the drinking. (This is why people who argue about 1 Corinthians 6:9 often forget that Paul's unique choice of words distinguishes between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour -- but that's another debate topic, let's not get off this one for a moment). : So, the idea that anything that we were born with must be ok with God because we do not choose it -- well, that idea has to be wrong. We're born with a sinful nature, aren't we? Did anyone on earth choose their sinful nature? Of course not. If they did, wouldn't there be some people who chose NOT to have a sinful nature? So everyone has it, and everyone was born with it, so just because you're born with something doesn't mean God thinks it's great. : Now here's the clincher. Many Christians argue (or should argue) that homosexuality is just another feature of a sinful nature. For some people, it's the urge to drink; others, lie, or cheat; perhaps for others it's heteroseuxal addiction or womanizing or whatever. Now, keep in mind, we ALL have it, so if a homosexual arrogantly says "How DARE you compare my lifestyle to that of a cheater!", he's automatically raising himself above the status of other regular people that have a sinful nature. If he's not a cheater, he's something just as miserable, maybe even worse, even if it's not being gay. He's making himself BETTER than them. Now, here's the big big clincher: whenever someone says, when talking about a particular behaviour, that at least it's not as bad as being a "such-and-such", I usually suspect that it's that very thing that they're running from. And homosexuals do this all the time: they don't like to think of themselves and their lifestyle as reprehensible as cheaters or liars or alcholics. They think better of themselves. : : >>> You need to "explode" this argument of yours as well. If you believe that the bible's authority is subject to the authority of : : science, you must also believe that all of Jesus' miracles, especially raising Lazarus from the dead, plus his own resurrection, : : must either be fabrications, exaggerations, or mistakes. Science would clearly and loudly say that dead people cannot be raised : : after three days, no one can really walk on water, etc. etc. Of course, you must also believe that Christians have been subject : : to a mass deception the likes of which the world has never seen before or since, almost all Christians believe in these things : : which science would clearly say are impossible, or at the very least, not repeatable (which is the important test in scientific : : truth).<<< : <<<<: Not at all, because your definition of science is in accurate. Science means to obtain information through observation and testing. Miracles have been documented and Jesus' resurrection has enough evidence to be considered a historical fact.>>>> : I didn't define science, I said testability was a crucial factor in scientific confirmation. If a claim or a phenomenon can't be tested or repeated, then in science's eyes it can't really be true. You yourself rely constantly on scientific observation, but you can't do so with the very kernal of the Christian belief. So, you're claim that the Bible must be "tested" by science cannot be true, since the resurrection could never be tested by science. That's why we have this thing called "faith". : Another point: you can't actually be serious that Jesus' resurrection is considered to be an historical fact. Almost no one outside of Christendom believes in his resurrection at all! You think people disbelieve in Christianity, EVEN THOUGH Jesus himself performed a ton of miracles and was raised from the dead? People disbelieve --- both in his time and ours -- because they don't really believe any of that. Historians acknowledge that he lived and died, etc, but none of them take the resurrection as historical fact. : : <<<<In the extremely low percentage of alleged chanegs, there has been documentation that many of these changes were either (1) change in behavior, not attraction; (2 ) confusion which later on resulted in the "patient" *admitting* that he or she never changed (3) or patients you only said they had chanegd to get people to stop tormenting them.>>>> : X, I personally know of seven gay men and women, here in Vancouver, that have changed. Four are married heterosexually and loving it. No one made them change, no one harassed them, gay harassment in this city is extremely rare and makes the front page when it happens. Now, the question is: why are you tormenting these people who have changed, saying it didn't really take, or it's in their heads, or otherwise casting doubt on it? : One of the major reason gay people may not even be attempting therapy is because they don't have any reason to. Gays enjoy unprecidented sympathy in the media and in the public eye, and restictions to gay lifestyle are disappearing at an incredibly fast rate. Most major North American cities throw them a parade every year. Why change? Change means giving up your lover and many of your friends, your hang-outs, etc, and -- with respect -- risking disrespect and doubt like the kind you provided above. Maybe therapies aren't working because others won't let them. But, in the end, it doesn't matter: the Christian attitude is that the orientation isn't the problem or the immediate need, it's the mindset and the behaviour. : <<<<: Even if the rest of the accounts were authentic and genuine, it is still a very low percentage which ignores the rest of the "patients" who have been severely* tormented by the "doctors" and their therapies; I mean, can you imagine some doctor trying to make you stop being attracted to women. Wouldnt that be extremely difficult for you?>>>> : It is no surprise this process of change is tormenting and painful. I haven't had to deal with changing my attraction to women, but I have with drugs. It's no walk in the park. Lots of gay people angrily claim that these orientation-switching therapies are reprehensible because they make people feel guilty, beat themselves up, make them hate themselves. What the HELL do gays think the rest of us are up to? Anybody who struggles with sinful behaviour must seek to change it, and none of us are exempt from the guilt-feeling side effects of going in to change what ails us. Such an attitude is openly hostile to pedophiles, who are humans too -- they get caught and spend a lifetime trying to change themselves, feeling guilty and full of self-loathing. Are homosexuals saying such people ought to just stop trying to change themselves, stop feeling guilty and depressed, and just accept who they are? Yeah, right. Under Jesus Christ, there IS no condemnation, so there needs to be no guilt. I've never met a homosexual that understood that. If a gay guy says he's trying to change himself but he's full of self-loathing all the time, I would say stop feeling guilty and keep on working to change, just like the rest of us are doing. : : : >>> So, which is it? The bible, or science?<<< : : Well i'm affraid your question ignores how study after study has shown that the bible not just a book of "faith" but a book full of observed scientific facts. : <<<: To accept the bible on blind faith without putting it to the test is, as I said before, in my opinion, naive. I think that God would want us to put the bible to tests before just accepting it.>>>> : By all means, when you set up a test on the resurrection, drop me an e-mail. I want to see it, and I'll bring my video camera. In the meantime, I'm going to continue believing without putting it to the test. : <<<<: I mean science has shown that the earth is round.. if the bible said the earth was flat then clearly it would be wrong. But the bible never says the earth is flat, just as it never says it is wrong to be gay.>>>>> : Ohhh...X, my friend, you made a mess of this one, I'm afraid. Promise me you'll never write something like this in a philosophy paper, ok? I'm not even sure where to start. You're trying to show that the Bible is accurate because it didn't say something. Which is like saying: I got a letter from Gary today, who didn't say that he was 24 feet tall. He also didn't claim that killing is wrong. Since he was accurate because he didn't make the first claim, he must be accurate in all claims he doesn't make. : : Ok...I'm getting snippy...I apologize. I guess it's time to say goodnight. : Chris

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Christianity and Homosexuality Discussi Board ] [ FAQ ]