Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct. We can only speculate on a person's eternal destination based on how they live. If you're a willful, practicing adulterer I would have as much reason to believe you're not a Christian as if you're a willful, practicing homosexual.
Or any other lifestyle of immorality or sin.
Well, I don't even know if homosexuality is a sin or not. Frankly, nor do you. I don't think it is, but if it is, my belief in Jesus saves me. You probably are a willful pork eater, polystyrene wearer, and you more than likely sleep in the same bed as your wife when she is on her womanly time of the month. Does that mean you aren't Christian? No. We willfully sin all of the time, but the amazing power of Jesus saves us from all of our sins, known and unknown.
Well, I don't even know if homosexuality is a sin or not. Frankly, nor do you.
Yes...I do know. It's a sin. Along with adultery, theft, fornication, etc. We're all guilty of sin. You, me...everyone.
Quote:
I don't think it is, but if it is, my belief in Jesus saves me.
Based on what? What did he do to save you? Honest question--you apparently haven't read the Bible enough to know if homosexuality is a sin, so I'm just asking if you've read what Jesus did.
Quote:
You probably are a willful pork eater, polystyrene wearer, and you more than likely sleep in the same bed as your wife when she is on her womanly time of the month.
You're right. I do. But then, I'm not an ancient Israelite to whom the Old Testament Mosaic Law was given. Jesus is the end of that Law, and we don't follow that anymore. You might know that if you'd read the Bible.
Quote:
Does that mean you aren't Christian? No. We willfully sin all of the time, but the amazing power of Jesus saves us from all of our sins, known and unknown.
I won't disagree with that. But then, we shouldn't continue in a lifestyle that we know to be sinful, either.
Here is the American Psychological Associations stance on the matter.
Quote:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
Editorial points out the overwhelming opinion of the medical and scientific communities that sexual orientation is not a choice.
Study shows gay men react to male pheromones in much the same way as heterosexual women.
Quote:
The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
"It shows a different physiological response to the same external stimulus," said Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute and the study's lead researcher. "This response [occurred] in the brain region involved in reproductive behavior."
And a couple studies showing possible genetic link...
Quote:
The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.
Human sexual preference is a sexually dimorphic trait with a substantial genetic component. Linkage of male sexual orientation to markers on the X chromosome has been reported in some families. Here, we measured X chromosome inactivation ratios in 97 mothers of homosexual men and 103 age-matched control women without gay sons. The number of women with extreme skewing of X-inactivation was significantly higher in mothers of gay men (13/97=13%) compared to controls (4/103=4%) and increased in mothers with two or more gay sons (10/44=23%). Our findings support a role for the X chromosome in regulating sexual orientation in a subgroup of gay men.
For some more anecdotal evidence, why don't you tell us about the point in your life when you made the conscious decision to ignore your attraction to men. I'd love to hear that story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Yes...I do know. It's a sin. Along with adultery, theft, fornication, etc. We're all guilty of sin. You, me...everyone.
That's pretty funny, I actually posted links in here where actual theologians (you know, those people that pay boat loads of money to go to school for years and study religion) actually refute this theory and many more disagree, yet here you are making an absolute claim to the contrary, with absolutely zero supporting evidence.
In this excellent piece by William O. Walker Jr, PhD, he points out that there was no biblical words for or even sense of homosexuality of bisexuality, that NONE of the texts supposedly condemning homosexuality are the contained in the four gospels and that there were likely significant translation questions to be raised. He offers this conclusion:
Quote:
To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly dubious. Perhaps, then, we could paraphrase what the New Testament says about homosexuality as follows: If homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong. But we could say exactly the same thing about heterosexuality, couldn’t we?
If homosexuality is not necessarily any of these things, however, then it would appear that the New Testament has nothing to say about it in any direct sense.
Reverend and Doctor Walter Wink points of the lack of logic and consistency on the position in his essay (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink - broken link).
Quote:
For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).
And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
Yes...I do know. It's a sin. Along with adultery, theft, fornication, etc. We're all guilty of sin. You, me...everyone.
Prove that it's a sin.
Quote:
Based on what? What did he do to save you? Honest question--you apparently haven't read the Bible enough to know if homosexuality is a sin, so I'm just asking if you've read what Jesus did.
I have read and studied the bible thoroughly thank you very much. Jesus, the son of God, was born from God through the Virgin Mary. On Earth, he lived a perfect life and fulfilled countless prophecies as the Jewish Messiah. But the Pharisees saw him and his preaching as a threat to their power and authority. But, Jesus knew this would happen. He willingly gave his perfect life so that he could save ANYONE who believes in him and they could live with him forever. On top of that, not even hell could contain him as he rose from the dead three days later. I could go into much greater detail, but I'd rather not. Never question my faith, ever. It is tremendously insulting.
Quote:
You're right. I do. But then, I'm not an ancient Israelite to whom the Old Testament Mosaic Law was given. Jesus is the end of that Law, and we don't follow that anymore. You might know that if you'd read the Bible.
Precisely. Jesus is the end of the law, including, oh i dunno, the exact verses you contend as condemning homosexuality. (Which can be debated for their true meaning.)
Quote:
I won't disagree with that. But then, we shouldn't continue in a lifestyle that we know to be sinful, either.
But again, you don't know it to be sinful. Read the bible, not the NIV, KJV or any translation for that matter.
Thanks, and very well played! Fatality for the win!
In all serious, I think the competitive phase of this debate is over. It's like Super Bowl XXXIII all over again. The winner(s) have already been decided and the loser is simply playing for pride. While I'm sure he'll come back and post some more disjointed logic, I think there are a few indisputable facts we've learned from this debate.
1) While Calvinist is probably a perfectly decent guy, he is rather intolerant of homosexuality. Furthermore, that intolerance almost certainly comes from the religious dogma he was raised with and follows today, rather than his own personal opinions.
2) Constitutional law and science is firmly on one side of this debate, and it's not Calvinist's side, so he must resort to logical fallacies to compensate.
3) Only the law (and to a degree, science) are relevant to policy making. Theology is irrelevant.
4) While he cannot debate the law and science, Calvinist probably has a good degree of theological knowledge. Unfortunately for him, he is very dogmatic about these views and regards them as absolute truths rather than the more correct view that they are theories that can be examined and modified. This is why when he's confronted with conflicting views from other theologians, he instantly and arbitrarily dismisses them, according to his personal biases, as "liberal", "moonbat" or just flat out wrong. He did the same thing with the judges, court cases and laws that he didn't agree with. Whether he knows this or not, this is a simple defense mechanism of someone who knows his beliefs have flaws but refuses to address them.
5) On a grand scale, the acceptance of gay marriage is proportional to age, and the younger generations support it. Thus, it will eventually become the law of the land. That is of course assuming that the Prop 8 issue doesn't end up at the SCOTUS, where it will almost certainly rule in favor of gay equality.
The thing this country struggles to do so much is separate church and state. Honestly I don't care what any religious dogma says because there is a religion stating the complete opposite things somewhere else and honestly there is no way to prove one is right and another is wrong. Hell maybe the Jews are still right and everyone following this Jesus guy's teachings are dammed to hell, because Yahweh is one vengeful SOB.
That is why religion has no business in government and if you remove religion from the argument there is 0 reason to not allow gays the same benefits in marriage(civil unions whatever) as straights.
And I am not some militant atheist or anything you could probably call me a Lapsed Catholic, I have 12 years of Catholic schooling. Also I will argue just as hard for your right to worship as I do for gay rights, it is one of those "liberal" mentalities Calvinist seems to look down on. (Maybe I am just a product of those dammed Jesuits )
I personally think that if God is real he/she/it will be far more likely to save those that are honest with themselves and are openly gay than he would be to someone who lies to themselves everyday of their lives. Again if you refuse to believe science and say being gay is a choice this conversation simply cannot be had.
It is not the governments duty to protect its people from possible eternal damnation.
The thing this country struggles to do so much is separate church and state. Honestly I don't care what any religious dogma says because there is a religion stating the complete opposite things somewhere else and honestly there is no way to prove one is right and another is wrong. Hell maybe the Jews are still right and everyone following this Jesus guy's teachings are dammed to hell, because Yahweh is one vengeful SOB.
That is why religion has no business in government and if you remove religion from the argument there is 0 reason to not allow gays the same benefits in marriage(civil unions whatever) as straights.
And I am not some militant atheist or anything you could probably call me a Lapsed Catholic, I have 12 years of Catholic schooling. Also I will argue just as hard for your right to worship as I do for gay rights, it is one of those "liberal" mentalities Calvinist seems to look down on. (Maybe I am just a product of those dammed Jesuits )
I personally think that if God is real he/she/it will be far more likely to save those that are honest with themselves and are openly gay than he would be to someone who lies to themselves everyday of their lives. Again if you refuse to believe science and say being gay is a choice this conversation simply cannot be had.
It is not the governments duty to protect its people from possible eternal damnation.
Good post!
Regarding the issue of science, I think that refusal to accept science is another defense mechanism of the deeply religious, because accepting it would open a huge Pandora's box of challenges for them. Think about it from Calvinist's point of view. Accepting the scientific consensus that homosexuality is not a choice, you're left with only a couple logical conclusions.
- God is not real
- God is real, but the bible is wrong.
- God is real and the bible is correct, which means that God created a significant portion of humanity that is predisposed to sin, and will sentence them to eternal damnation for the way he made them.
None of those options are really fun things to think about for someone like Calvinist, so they take the easy way out of going into denial and closing the door to science.
Regarding the issue of science, I think that refusal to accept science is another defense mechanism of the deeply religious, because accepting it would open a huge Pandora's box of challenges for them. Think about it from Calvinist's point of view. Accepting the scientific consensus that homosexuality is not a choice, you're left with only a couple logical conclusions.
- God is not real
- God is real, but the bible is wrong.
- God is real and the bible is correct, which means that God created a significant portion of humanity that is predisposed to sin, and will sentence them to eternal damnation for the way he made them.
None of those options are really fun things to think about for someone like Calvinist, so they take the easy way out of going into denial and closing the door to science.
No, the bible is correct. However, the English translations are the things that are wrong.
No, the bible is correct. However, the English translations are the things that are wrong.
That's basically what I was referring to and probably should have clarified.
And just for the record, I am not endorsing any of those options. Just merely pointing them out.
Last edited by McBain II; 09-14-2011 at 09:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
