Evidence for God from Science

Prodigal Son wrote:i don't condone homosexuality, but i believe that it is a behavior that is attacked far out of proportion. if all sin is equal, then why is everyone attacking homosexuality so passionately? what about every other sin? what about liars, and thieves, and murderers, and rapists, and adulterers? it's one sin they are committing just like every other sin. i don't see people saying, you don't have the right to do such and such because you're a liar or an adulterer, or whatever. we should introduce them to Christ because Jesus loves them and wants them saved, not because they are homosexuals. everyone's a sinner...everyone on this forum, everyone everywhere.

Ahh. I agree with you here. Especially disconcerting is if people start saying "you can't do such and such because you experience same-sex attraction." This takes things even further out of proportion, since only the behavior is sinful.

Prodigal Son wrote:sick, dude. but besides being sick, you're also incorrect. one is abusive, the other is consensual. you can't even compare the two.

Am I? Let's say the daughter wants sex. Is it still wrong then?

This takes things even further out of proportion, since only the behavior is sinful.

As lust is adultery, I'd have to disagree with you there. Jesus made it quite clear that thoughts can be just as much sin as actions.

Also, it helps to clarify that we're not talking about the normal, natural need for same-sex companionship experienced by all humans. When we mention homosexual, or same-sex, attraction, we're almost always(definitely so in this topic) discussing the type of attraction that goes a step farther. That sexualizes it and becomes lust.

You make it sound like we're talking about the innocent type of same-sex attraction -- the kind that makes guys hang out together, like when watching sports -- when we're not. This topic is specifically for the type of SSA that has been sexualized. It is lust, and ergo it is a sin whether you "act on it" or not.

Am I? Let's say the daughter wants sex. Is it still wrong then?

We're all aware of moral relativism's flaws, and that morals are absolute.

You, however, are just offensive. You don't say anything that anyone actually needs to hear. There are many ways to bring someone to a knowledge of their sinful condition that aren't nearly as offensive as the things you've said. In other words, they're much more effective.

If all you want to do is tout your moral superiority, by all means continue to say what you've been saying. If you have any actual concern for your fellow man, though, you'll find some other, more effective way to appeal to their conscience.

LittleShepherd wrote:

Am I? Let's say the daughter wants sex. Is it still wrong then?

We're all aware of moral relativism's flaws, and that morals are absolute.

At least I hope we are all aware, but many Christians sadly aren't. Perhaps Forge's comments a misdirected at Prodigal Son who assumably does accept absolute moral values, but I think he does make a valid point to those who would believe homosexual acts are alright, or less sinful, if such is between two consenting people. For this really has no impact on whether something is right or wrong, more right, or less wrong. I believe this is what Forge was driving at?

Kurieuo.

LittleShepherd wrote:

This takes things even further out of proportion, since only the behavior is sinful.

As lust is adultery, I'd have to disagree with you there. Jesus made it quite clear that thoughts can be just as much sin as actions.

Yes, lustful thoughts can be. I was referring to sexual attraction without lust. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to just not have sexual attractions. And although homosexual attractions are a bad thing, they are not necessarily sinful. Suppose you fell by accident and broke your arm. Would that be bad? Yes. Would it be sinful? No. From looking at ex-gay web sites, NARTH, etc. it appears that homosexual attractions are similar to this. Like in your case, you described peer rejection as a major influence. This is widely recognized by ex-gay ministries as a major cause of SSA. I would have to say it does not appear that having SSA is a choice. Who would possibly choose such a thing? Plus, the majority who have changed report that change was a slow process rather than an instant decision.

However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, do note that both lust and behavior are most certainly choices. I am simply saying that the attraction part is not.

LittleShepherd wrote:Also, it helps to clarify that we're not talking about the normal, natural need for same-sex companionship experienced by all humans. When we mention homosexual, or same-sex, attraction, we're almost always(definitely so in this topic) discussing the type of attraction that goes a step farther. That sexualizes it and becomes lust.

Sexualized != lust. They could be sexual same-sex attractions, but this would not necessarily constitute lust. It becomes lust if you dwell on the attractions, undress people in your mind, fantasize, etc. But I do not believe that simple attractions, even if sexualized, constitute lust. I would expect that it would be very easy for someone with SSA to fall into lust, but the SSA isn't the lust. I also don't see how something that isn't a direct decision would be sinful. Suppose we have someone who is going through reparative therapy, gaining deeper healthy friendships with others of the same sex, and the like. If this person still had SSA, would he or she be living a life of sin? I don't think so, unless true lust continued.

LittleShepherd wrote:You make it sound like we're talking about the innocent type of same-sex attraction -- the kind that makes guys hang out together, like when watching sports -- when we're not. This topic is specifically for the type of SSA that has been sexualized. It is lust, and ergo it is a sin whether you "act on it" or not.

No, I am talking about sexualized attractions with great potential to lead to lust but which do not constitute lust.

I guess my original quote of "only the behavior is sinful" was incorrect, since I failed to account for lust. However, what I meant to address was simple attraction.

LittleShepherd wrote:You, however, are just offensive.

Forgive me. I assumed that making a logical argument allowed me to be uncouth. My apologies.

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps Forge's comments a misdirected at Prodigal Son who assumably does accept absolute moral values

Don't you believe morals are absolute?

but I think he does make a valid point to those who would believe homosexual acts are alright, or less sinful, if such is between two consenting people. For this really has no impact on whether something is right or wrong, more right, or less wrong. I believe this is what Forge was driving at?

Exactly. I was showing how "if they consent, it's okay" argument opens doors to many other acts.

Forge wrote:Don't you believe morals are absolute?

Absolutely grounded in who God is.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: Absolutely grounded in who God is.

A simple "yes" would have sufficed nicely.

LittleShepherd wrote:

This takes things even further out of proportion, since only the behavior is sinful.

As lust is adultery, I'd have to disagree with you there. Jesus made it quite clear that thoughts can be just as much sin as actions.

Also, it helps to clarify that we're not talking about the normal, natural need for same-sex companionship experienced by all humans. When we mention homosexual, or same-sex, attraction, we're almost always(definitely so in this topic) discussing the type of attraction that goes a step farther. That sexualizes it and becomes lust.

You make it sound like we're talking about the innocent type of same-sex attraction -- the kind that makes guys hang out together, like when watching sports -- when we're not. This topic is specifically for the type of SSA that has been sexualized. It is lust, and ergo it is a sin whether you "act on it" or not.

Actions are usually sinful not thoughts, one exception as you mentioned is adulturey. However, this is a heterosexual sin that involves at least one of the party involved being married. "If man lusts after a woman then he has comitted adulturey with her in his heart". Well he cant commit adulturey if he or/and the woman he's lusting after isnt married!

If a mere homosexual orientation is sin (which its not as only homosexual sexual behaviour is sin not the orientation) then the same would apply to a heterosexual orientation and then it would be wrong to be heterosexual! Lol which obviously it isnt. You cant have it both ways.

Forge wrote:

Prodigal Son wrote:sick, dude. but besides being sick, you're also incorrect. one is abusive, the other is consensual. you can't even compare the two.

Am I? Let's say the daughter wants sex. Is it still wrong then?

Yeah you are sick if you cant tell the difference between pedophilia (child abuse) and homosexual behaviour (consentiual same sex behaviour between adults).

Forge wrote: Don't you believe morals are absolute?

Of course not! Something like murder would be we and can all agree about that being wrong because it is one person causing serious harm to another. But something like homosexuality, which harms no one, is moraly relative.

Actions are usually sinful not thoughts

Wrong. You agree with the mentioned "exception" of adultery, which really isn't an exception at all. Lust, hatred, covetousness, selfishness, pride, vanity, etc. are all sins of the mind. While they may lead to sinful actions, they are not actions in and of themselves, yet they are still sin. Also, the vast majority of sinful actions only take place after one has given in to certain sinful thoughts that precede them.

However, this is a heterosexual sin that involves at least one of the party involved being married. "If man lusts after a woman then he has comitted adulturey with her in his heart". Well he cant commit adulturey if he or/and the woman he's lusting after isnt married!

False. The words translated as "adultery" in the Bible refer to sexual sin in general, not the specific act that adultery has come to be known as today. Even in English, the word adultery used to be more general, and later came to refer to a more specific act. Ergo, Biblical adultery is not limited to heterosexual people, nor to married people. Lust is adultery no matter who is doing the lusting, or whom is the object of said lust.

If a mere homosexual orientation is sin (which its not as only homosexual sexual behaviour is sin not the orientation) then the same would apply to a heterosexual orientation and then it would be wrong to be heterosexual! Lol which obviously it isnt. You cant have it both ways.

Attraction is not lust. Attraction is a great and awesome gift, but lust is the perversion of our natural desires. Much as gluttony is the perversion of our desire for food. It is possible for someone to have healthy heterosexual attraction without succumbing to lust; however, one only begins having homosexual attractions after they have already succumbed to lust.

But something like homosexuality, which harms no one, is moraly relative.

You may go around with blinders on all you like, but it's been proven time and time again that homosexuality harms everyone involved. The people directly involved are exposed to many diseases that heterosexuals almost never have to worry about. When homosexuality becomes accepted, society also suffers. You may view Europe, where such things as homosexuality are mostly accepted, as some sort of Eutopia state, but the basic statistics on depression, hopelessness, and suicide in Europe paint another picture altogether.

LittleShepherd wrote: Attraction is not lust. Attraction is a great and awesome gift, but lust is the perversion of our natural desires. Much as gluttony is the perversion of our desire for food. It is possible for someone to have healthy heterosexual attraction without succumbing to lust; however, one only begins having homosexual attractions after they have already succumbed to lust.

Whatever man you can be homosexual all your life and be a virgin. You can be same sexually attracted without succumbing to lust just as you can with heterosexuality. More propoganda nonsense. One only begins having homosexual attractions after puperty kicks in. It develps the same way as heterosexuality does and has nothing to do with succumbing to lust.

You may go around with blinders on all you like, but it's been proven time and time again that homosexuality harms everyone involved. The people directly involved are exposed to many diseases that heterosexuals almost never have to worry about. When homosexuality becomes accepted, society also suffers. You may view Europe, where such things as homosexuality are mostly accepted, as some sort of Eutopia state, but the basic statistics on depression, hopelessness, and suicide in Europe paint another picture altogether.

It's well known that problems to do with homosexuality are caused by homophobia and not the homosexuality itself. Homosexuals are exposed to the same diseases heterosexuals are exposed to. The problem here would be promisciuty and unsafe sex practices not a particular sexual orientation. Besides only a small proportion of homosexuals are promiscius, most are no more or actually less than heterosexuals are. This is just yet another one of the many false steroetypes that exists surrounding homosexuality.

XenonII wrote:Whatever man you can be homosexual all your life and be a virgin.

I disagree, for I'm an anti-labelist when it comes to the many things that describe "who" we are. I don't believe we are straight, homosexual, good, or bad. We are not our actions, even though they may influence who we are to others. So for me, even someone who practices homosexuality is not literally homosexual. Rather, they are simply a person who practices homosexuality. I think boxed categories do nothing but make people feel helpless, or comfortable thereby taking away their responsibility.

Kurieuo.