Posted by X on July 12, 19102 at 20:48:09:
In Reply to: Re: The ol' posted by Chris H. on July 12, 19102 at 04:43:34:
>>>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?<<<
Well actually I thought you meant homosexuality so I was asking you to provide arguments against it. But now I see what you meant.
As far as a relationship with a 12-year old girl.. it seems to be wrong to me but what you're talking about is pederasty and should never be compared to adult homosexuality. But I do understand your argument and its a good point.
I dont think a person can be inlove with an animal... besides, the bible condemns bestiality.
>>> 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? <<<
I totally understand what you're saying. I do aggree with most of what you say. I do not think relationships between two men is wrong because it does not hurt anybody.
>>>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.<<<
I meant being In love but that doesnt really matter much Iguess. At any rate, bestiality is prohibited in the bible so that settles the man-animal sex issue.
Homosexuality is NOT prohibited in the bible, so any claim that homosexuality is wrong is a theological claim and not a biblical claim.
Having a relationship with a 12-year-old is also a theological argument.
So both homosexuality and adult-youth relationships are theological debates. The only way to come to conclusions about these issues is with our god-given sense of logic and reasoning.
A relationship with a 12-year-old would probably cause alot of damage to the girl. Further, a 12 year old girl is not mature enough to be in a relationship with an adult, for any amount of time. Thus, it seems to be wrong for an adult to be in a relationship with a 12 year old.
>>>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. <<<
what you're doing is making an analogy between bestiality and homosexuality.
Second, you are asking me to provide biblical accounts of God blessing same-sex unions. You think that if I cannot do so then its wrong... but this logic fails because (1) you cant prove a negative. there are not biblical passages speaking against homosexuality, not are their any logical reasons as to why it would be wrong. You certianly cant argue that it is wrong without a logcial reason as to why (2) there may just be a refference to same-sex marriage in the bible.
>>> 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.<<<
Good points. that does make sense since some people have a stronger desire to drink than others do so I aggree with you there. I totally agree with what you said above.
>>> 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. <<<
You raise good points and I have no choice but to aggree with you. However, just because getting drunk is wrong does not mean homosexuality is wrong. After all, the bible does condemn getting drunk, right? yet the bible never condemns gays.
So we now aggree that certian things are inborn: alcoholism, homosexuality, green eyes, etc. Alcoholism hurts, but homosexuals find true happiness with eachother so we still do not know if homosexuality is wrong from your alalogies. [and I dont think anyone would argue that having green eyes is wrong ;)]
>>> 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.<<<
Yes I aggree. Some of our inborn traits are sinful while others are not. In order to determine which ones are wrong we must use the bible and if the bible is silent on the matter we must use our god-given sence of logic and reasoning (ie. "use our heads") to determine which ones are wrong.
>>> 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.<<<
the main reasons homosexuals dont want to be compared to cheaters is because cheating hurts. Homosexuality doesnt harm anybody (and you cant argue about AIDs since heterosexuals also get it, so it comes down to responcibility).
Lying also hurts. My lover use to always say to me "I love you more than eternity"- then I found out that was a lie. So lying is very harmful. I dont see how being gay is.
Homosexuals dont want to be compared to alcoholics because excessing drinking hurts everyone and homosexual behavior does not hurt anybody. This is definately not so say alcoholics are bad people, just that their "life-styles" are usually very painful for them as well as their families and friends.
At any rate, these analogies you are making are being made at the assumption that homosexuality is wrong. Just replace "homosexuals" and "homosexuality" above with "people with brown eyes" and you'll see what I mean. Both are inborn, and the only way to see if its wrong is with the bible or common sense/logic.
>>> 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".<<<
Yes I am aware of "faith" but we actually dont need to believe in the resurrection with "faith". Jesus's ressurrection was observed and has so much support for it it can be called a historical fact. When Jesus was stabbed while on the cross, blood and water came out at the same time. Medical studies and observation have proven that this cannot happen unless the organism is DEAD... so jesus did die.
>>> 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.<<<
I am serious and could get very detailed on this if you want. The reason many don't believe in his resurrection is because they dont want to believe in God, because of their fallen nature and also have not seriously and honestlty studied the evidence. I recommend that you read some currect literature on this particular issue. At any rate we're starting to get off track here.
>>> 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?<<<
Im not tormenting them; its usually christians tormenting gays who havent "changed". Your friends could be bisexual, combine that with a faulty biblical belief and it would be easy for them to be married to a women.
>>>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.<<<
Chris, even IF a homosexual could become a heterosexual, the rate of the claims being made of change is very very low. There are many many gay people who DO want to change yet cannot do so. Sometimes these therapies are 5 days a week for several years in a row, by that point the homosexual is either extremely depressed and gave up or is exteremly depressed and hasnt given up.
The number of "changes" is very very low. so if coversion worked, that would not mean gays should do it since the vast majority of those who try it fail and end up in misery.
Many many of the allgeged conversions end up being done on bisexuals. Also, many of the patients who claimed to have changed admitted later on that they never did.
IF your friends are not bisexual and DID change, then that is amazing and I recommend that you contact the Kinsey Insitute who has had an open offer for 40 years to report a case of actual change in sexual orientation, not just behavior.
As to your other point, there are literally hundreds of gay CHRISTIANS who do know that "Under Jesus Christ, there IS no condemnation, so there needs to be no guilt." I personally know gay *christians* who realise this and have tried to change. I know a gay christian who tried for over 10 years to be changed yet could not do so.
My main point is that even if it was possible to change orientation, nearly ALL of the patients who have tried to do so failed. Its like going to therapy to have your eye color changed.
Whether or not sexual orientation can be changed does not make it right to try and do so. Almost every single person who tries to do so ends up in misery and does not change at all. This cannot be ignored simply because a few have changed (assuming they really did). The fact that the number of allged changes is so extremely low gives credit to the theory that they are bisexuals.
>>>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.<<<
Chris this is totally ignoring my main point. I am NOT saying that we should not believe somethign the bible says simply because it does not have scientific support.. my point was that if the bible contradicts a well known scientific fact then it would dis-credit the bible.
As for the resurrection... if you study all of the evidence, i dont think you need faith, but thats just me. If people only believe the ressurection on faith then thats great too; but you missed my main point (i never said everything in the bible can be scientifically proven.. I said that the bible does not contradict science).
>>> 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. <<<
No, I made no mess. I am not trying to say the bible is acurate because it did not say something. FYI, the bible says the earth is round and that it can be day and night at the same time. The bible also teaches that there are air circuts which was not known until recently. My point was that the bible is scientifically accurate. your comment above has nothing to do with what I said- you mis-understood me- I guess i was just not clear enough.
You cannot argue that homosexuality is wrong since the bible does not say it is. The bible does say that murder is wrong btw but that is besides the point i was making.
You cant prove a negative... you say homosexuality is wrong by God, then I challenge you to show me where the bible teaches this- your view is the product of philosophy.
>>>Ok...I'm getting snippy...I apologize. I guess it's time to say goodnight.<<<
Im not sure if that was a direct mocking of me or not. I sure hope not.
As for a comment you made earlier:
>>>(This is why people who argue about 1Corinthians 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).<<<
Paul's "unique" words do not address homosexual behavior in general. A simple study of the word will show this. But in an-depth study of word usage shows that Paul was not thinking of homosexuality.
Im guessing you have not read the article on jeramy's website that shows ALL of the known occurences of this "unique" word. I suggest you do so before asserting.
~ X