Homosexuality and destroying faith

[Proinsias]

Thanks rodyshusband.

Can't say I found it very agreeable but good to hear nontheless.

[rodyshusband]

Thanks rodyshusband.

Can't say I found it very agreeable but good to hear nontheless.

What did you find disagreeable?

[Proinsias]

Most of what William Lane Craig said.

I've spent some of the past few days listening to him and reading as I've never heard of him before you posted. I can't say I've heard any of his conclusions I find agreeable.

[LittleShepherd]

Well, the right question to ask is not "do I like what he's saying," but rather "is what he saying true?" And the best way to determine that is to look at the two important properties of his argument, philosophically speaking -- soundness and validity. If you're lucky, the argument will also be cogent, but there are numerous reasons an argument might not be, and cogency doesn't actually affect the truthfulness(or potential truthfulness) of the argument. I'm going to have to listen to this sometime, though -- WLC is one of the foremost Christian philosophers of today, and I'd love to hear his arguments against homosexuality sometime.

[Harry12345]

I feel this poll is a little biased... but anyway if I didn't manage to convince someone that homosexuality is wrong, then oh well, life goes on I guess. I'd just give up, and if they were a co-worker or peer I'd just treat them like I would any other co-worker or peer from then on, without mentioning their homosexuality.

And yes, NARTH is pretty... um... well it's certainly something.

[rodyshusband]

Well, the right question to ask is not "do I like what he's saying," but rather "is what he saying true?" And the best way to determine that is to look at the two important properties of his argument, philosophically speaking -- soundness and validity. If you're lucky, the argument will also be cogent, but there are numerous reasons an argument might not be, and cogency doesn't actually affect the truthfulness(or potential truthfulness) of the argument. I'm going to have to listen to this sometime, though -- WLC is one of the foremost Christian philosophers of today, and I'd love to hear his arguments against homosexuality sometime.

Hello. LittleShepard.
Craig comments on homosexuality here:
http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... sexual.mp3

[Lorden]

There is NOTHING wrong with Homosexuality. All of you who say there is, is arrogant, close minded, and intolerant.

Jesus, in my opinion never spoke against it, nor should you. He did speak of marriage between man and woman, but thats not what we are talking about.

Jesus taught you all to not Judge. To Judge someone for the way they live there life is wrong. There life is not your life. so leave them alone.

And if they want to find god whether through Jesus...religion...Christianity...church....You should Praise them, not demean them, not say you are better or look down upon or pity them.


All of you who think you should destroy someones faith should go to hell. Jesus would truly be ashamed.

[LittleShepherd]

There is NOTHING wrong with Homosexuality. All of you who say there is, is arrogant, close minded, and intolerant.

I'm going to need more than your word on this, sorry.

Jesus, in my opinion never spoke against it, nor should you.

We don't know if Jesus ever directly addressed it(remember, the Gospel of John clearly states that not everything Jesus ever said was recorded, and even states just how voluminous a comprehensive collection would have been), and it wasn't a huge problem in Israel at the time due to their following the Levitical law code that specifically prohibited homosexual actions(and studies of the pre-Christian Talmud and Mishna show quite clearly that Jews have always taken it to be a blanket prohibition of such acts and not some context-specific application as some who attempt to twist the passages often claim).

He did speak of marriage between man and woman, but thats not what we are talking about.

He did uphold the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and we now know that human marriage is a type(representation) of the relationship between Christ and His Church. And he often pointed to and upheld the moral law put forth in the Old Testament(He fulfilled, not abolished, it -- there's a huge difference), which includes a certain passage in Leviticus that prohibits homosexual actions(regardless of motive, so the whole "but they didn't understand homosexual desire the way we do" argument is also moot).

Jesus taught you all to not Judge. To Judge someone for the way they live there life is wrong. There life is not your life. so leave them alone.

Jesus taught us to make right judgments, and to take care of our own problems first so as not to be hypocrites in our judgments of others. He did not teach us not to judge others at all -- that is simply false, and quoting the rest of the passage that "do not judge lest you be judged" appears in makes this clear. Read the entire chapter sometime. It's quite illuminating. Now there are certain types of judgments we are not to make -- such as stating with certainty someone's eternal destination. This is more due to human limitations than anything else, though -- while one may be involved in sin, and that sin if it continues will lead to hell, the person is not dead yet and there is still a chance they will come to repentance at some future date, and there is no way for any mere human to know the future well enough to make such a judgment. "You are going to hell" is something completely different than the conditional statement "If you do not repent of your sins, you will go to hell."

And if they want to find god whether through Jesus...religion...Christianity...church....You should Praise them, not demean them, not say you are better or look down upon or pity them.

There is only one way to God. Jesus Himself said so. And He placed the condition of repentance on His offer of salvation. Anything that contradicts what Jesus Himself said about how to come to God on His terms should be denounced. This has nothing to do with "looking down" on people or thinking that we Christians are "better" -- "but by the grace of God" and all that, y'know. And pity for people who currently refuse to meet Jesus on His terms is a fully appropriate reaction. But having pity on someone is not the same thing as looking down on them or thinking yourself better than them. It's a complete non-sequitor.

All of you who think you should destroy someones faith should go to hell. Jesus would truly be ashamed.

I haven't seen anyone state that it would be good to destroy someone's faith. Of course, true faith -- pistis -- requires meeting Jesus on His terms, and that involves repenting of sins, and that includes homosexual acts. It also includes any heterosexual sexual sins, just so you know. Pointing out to someone that they are unrepentant cannot destroy someone's faith, as their unrepentant lifestyle is evidence that they do not have the faith to destroy in the first place. It may destroy false hope, but allowing someone to continue in false hope is something truly uncaring and, well, downright evil.

You are right that we should go to hell, though. I should. You should. We all should. Again, "but by the grace of God."

[SweetMonkeyLove]

I can't vote on that poll as there is no answer that suits me. If I had a friend who is homosexual (and i do) I would tell them that they are perfect the way they are and that what they chose to do consentually harms no-one. Love is love. This is one of the topics that keep todays youth disenfranchised with religion. Christianity has changed its stance on issues in the past (flat earth) and this is one it should consider. Question; How is telling someone they are wrong and going to hell for it showing love and tolerance. There are many gay people who would love to be a part of a church and a community but they are shunned for a condition they do not chose (I know that a lot of christians beleive it is a choice however gay people themselves do not) Let he who is without sin.....

[cslewislover]

I have known homosexuals, and I like most of them very much indeed. I wouldn't tell them that they're going to hell, but, God does say it's a sin (because we are all sinners). If I sin, do I think I'm going to hell? No. But I do recognize what the bible declares are sins, and if I fall into some sin, I need to repent of it (after having confessed my faith in Christ at some point). This is not an easy issue at all since homosexuality isn't normally a single sin, but a way of life. However, there's no reason for the Church to change its stance on homosexuality since it's clear from what God has said that He considers it sinful. Learning from science and figuring out how it fits in with the bible is a totally different type of application. The church doesn't declare adultery no longer sinful because every one is doing it; it's the same with homosexuality.

[SweetMonkeyLove]

The bible clearly says the earth was created in six days yet the church of england has issued an apology to darwin who's theorys go against that scripture. Christians readily admit that this could be a translation error. 'How long is a day to god' We forget that the bible was written by man is interpreted by man and is administered by man. Man as we all know is fallable. So it is possible for the church to change its stand on issues. Especially when its back is against the wall as it was in the case of darwin (and gallileo)
Many say science has shown that homesexuality exsists in many species and some even contend that it is a genetic response to overpopulation. The nature of things did a show on homosexual rats and also a group of homosexual wolves trapped on an island in the queen charlette islands. These wolves turn to homosexuality when faces with starvation and disease due to overpopulation. Or so the theory goes. I cannot find that episode of the nature of things i just remember it as i found it interesting. I did however find this http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx This article claims that homosexuality is a natural phenomenom in nature. Quote "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"
I personally think that the sooner the church resolves some of its archaic doctrine the sooner we can work towards tolerance of all people. I would mention the ones (doctrines) i feel are most important but it would highjack this thread with responses out of place. Suffice it to say that church attendance by youth is waaaaay down and it is a direct result of antiquated policies IMO.
ty. SML

[Gabrielman]

I personally think that the sooner the church resolves some of its archaic doctrine the sooner we can work towards tolerance of all people. I would mention the ones (doctrines) i feel are most important but it would highjack this thread with responses out of place. Suffice it to say that church attendance by youth is waaaaay down and it is a direct result of antiquated policies IMO.
ty. SML

-_- really? I am 22, I love God and the current Church doctrine. The youth is brain washed, given half the facts and indoctrinated in the public schools. Don't say they aren't, I was there not too long ago and upon independent research found that they teach only half stories, that aside, they leave the Church because of that, because they are told that it is wrong to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Why is it that we have to change our faith every time it offends someone? Why? Why don't you try working on Islam, they kill and beat homosexuals. We tolerate them, we just don't want them using our union which is marriage, a union between a man and a woman (1 man and 1 woman... not more). I find what you have said to be an offense to my faith. I will not change the way I believe just because someone wants me too. Men and women were made for each other, it works in a natural way, it's how God wanted it to be. Why don't they just accept that? Why do they have to use our union for their purposes? Why do we have to change, and not the other way around?

The bible clearly says the earth was created in six days yet the church of england has issued an apology to darwin who's theorys go against that scripture. Christians readily admit that this could be a translation error. 'How long is a day to god'

I really don't think the Church of england can speak for all the Christians. Further more how is it a translation error, it was symbolic, it's how you take the word 'day' and it is possible that it means a longer period of time (like the sun rise and set is the dawn and dusk of an era) or it could mean one day, I am for the former. But just because they changed that doesn't mean we should change our moral ideas, how does that have to do with morals? Our doctrine on homosexuality is a moral one, and isn't subject to science. To be honest, I don't believe that it isn't a choice. Some one once asked me how do I know I am not gay? Simple, I don't want to be, I want to be straight, and I am. Even a gay friend at my work says it's his choice, and he doesn't believe that gays should marry either. All in all it is a moral thing and science doesn't dictate our morals.

We forget that the bible was written by man is interpreted by man and is administered by man. Man as we all know is fallable. So it is possible for the church to change its stand on issues. Especially when its back is against the wall as it was in the case of darwin (and gallileo)

God's word is His inspired word, we interpret it through His Holy Spirit, and it is and always will be administered by God through His people. And so far as Gallileo is concerned, the Bible never said we were the center of the solar system.

Christianity has changed its stance on issues in the past (flat earth) and this is one it should consider.

The Bible never said the earth was flat -_- come on now, monks told Columbus it was round...
Okay well I have put in my two cents, I do tolerate homosexuals and if they want their own union well that is fine by me as long as it isn't marriage. I don't mind if they have benefits or whatever, but do they really have to have our union? Why not make their own?

[SweetMonkeyLove]

I do not wish to offend anyones faith. Lets make that very clear.
I would like the opportunity to speak further on your rebuttles Gabrielman, however my wife has gone into labour and needs my support right now. It looks like we are having a baby tonight!!! wish us luck and I will get back on this in a day or two once I have the honour of meeting my daughter! Peace.

[Byblos]

I do not wish to offend anyones faith. Lets make that very clear.
I would like the opportunity to speak further on your rebuttles Gabrielman, however my wife has gone into labour and needs my support right now. It looks like we are having a baby tonight!!! wish us luck and I will get back on this in a day or two once I have the honour of meeting my daughter! Peace.

Good luck and congrats. Hope all turns out well.

[cslewislover]

I do not wish to offend anyones faith. Lets make that very clear.
I would like the opportunity to speak further on your rebuttles Gabrielman, however my wife has gone into labour and needs my support right now. It looks like we are having a baby tonight!!! wish us luck and I will get back on this in a day or two once I have the honour of meeting my daughter! Peace.

Lol, I thought you were a female. I just went and looked at your profile again and saw that you have Earl as one of your favorite TV shows - that probably would've clued me in better if I had paid attention.

Congratulations on the baby. It may be hard to focus for a while!

As for the homosexuality issue, I want to get verses posted about it. You would need to show why the Church should somehow cut those out (which, I've heard, but haven't seen for myself, some homosexual churches in fact do!) or explain them away somehow. No believer lightly alters or ignores the Word of God. Otherwise, a person needs to accept Jesus as their Savior, yes, but also their Lord. If a person sins and does not repent of it, and he or she is truly the Lord's, then they will eventually feel convicted of the sin (by the Holy Spirit) and repent. We know this happens, so it is not a matter of changing the church's doctrines to fit currently popular sexual practices (what is officially accepted, that is, since there's nothing new under the sun), but to let God change those who are His. God doesn't change, but He changes people.

And before you get too upset and say that I can then judge people, I'm not and won't. For a person who continues to sin while appearing in all other ways to be the Lord's, I would simply say that that is between that person and the Lord. But we are also commanded to teach his word and point out sin, in love, so people know; what they do with that knowledge is between them and the Lord.