Sexual Orientation

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah 'cos romantic films are such a guide to real life.:rolleyes:

I was talking about the actors

No one thinks the stars of the last romantic comedy are in love with each other just because you watched them spend the last 2 hours acting lovingly to each other.

There is a world of difference between being in love with someone (the emotional state that you do not control) and acting lovingly to someone (the actions that can be a result of being in love or any a host of other reasons)

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK, I get the last bit, not sure anyone said you choose who to love as much as choosing how to love.

Seems to be what some are saying. Though I'm probably going to be accused of selective quote mining and misrepresentation any moment now ... :P

tommy2bad wrote: »

And btw that can mean leaving them as much as sticking with it.

Exactly, which is why heart break is a thing. If what some people were claiming were true heart break wouldn't exist. You would simply choose not to be in love with the person who just left you. Obviously that isn't how it works.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The thing is you seem to assume that falling in love trumps all else, I'm married 29 years and if I chased every one I fell in love with in the last 29 years I would not be still married.

Er, I'm not sure it is a good thing that you have been falling in love constantly with other people while you have been married, given that love tends to be rather binary, ie you tend to only be in love with one person at a time.

Though perhaps you are confusing falling in love with someone with simple attraction to another person. As you said the love you might find. If you haven't found it yet then you haven't fallen in love with this new person.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I chose not to, more than that; I chose my wife over them. The love I had was worth more than the love I thought I'd find. It's called growing up.

Well that depends on the answer to the above question.

Personally I don't think it is a good idea to stay in a loveless marriage simply to keep married and not break up with your partner. I think that does a disservice to both yourself and your partner, given that there is an expectation on your partners part that you love her. Not and pretending otherwise is living a lie, no matter how lovingly you act to her.

Not saying this is what you have done (again I think by "falling in love" you think we mean simply being attracted to others), but it is what some people do, people who genuinely fall out of love.

tommy2bad

Yeah, I misread you about the romantic films. Tired after Bruce is my excuse.
I think we agree being in love is best in a binary situation but I don't think being in love is binary.
Theirs a point when you have to make a choice. I don't think that I would love my wife any less if I had two wives because each love is different. I can chose to be loveing to any number of people, I can fall in love with a lot of people but not in the same way each time. As you said it's complicated but I and I only speak for myself, have met others that I regret having to leave alone but thats not saying that I love my wife less, just that if all things being equal I could be as happy with them.

Or do you believe that theirs only one? and that once found all others are redundant? Isn't that obsession more than love?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

'Varying denominations'....often based on different readings of the bible. As I said, there are over 38,000 Christian churches. That alone speaks to the difficulty of interpretation. Seeking an answer on something as specific as homosexuality is therefore doomed to failure.

So I've read the Bible with Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, non-denominational Christians, Brethren, Baptists, and varying shares of Pentecostals. The vast majority of the time, we've come to pretty much the same conclusion on whatever passages of Scripture we were studying. How is that? Or is it just a fluke?

There are quite a number of passages that clearly speak about it in both Old and New Testaments. One example:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 wrote:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The ESV gives us a footnote saying the following:

6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

Irrespective of denomination, that's still Biblical whether people like it or not. Notice that it takes its place amongst an array of other sins. That it isn't isolated on its own.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you know many peolpe who have changed their sexuality? I personally haven't heard of it happening. Sexuality is not something we learn, like a language

There have been cases of people in marriages becoming homosexual, likewise there have been people in homosexual relationships who have married, and no longer do the things they formerly did.

Just because I have desires does not make it acceptable to act upon them. Christians struggle with sin, but if we have died to sin as the Bible tells us in Romans 6, then we should turn away from sin and actively forbid it from enslaving us again once more.

sbsquarepants

PDN wrote: »

Where did I say they should refrain from anything?

Stop making stuff up.

Did you not say that being attracted to your own sex is not a sin, but acting on it is? Do you not think people should give up their auld sins?
Is it too much of jump to put those two together and come up with what i said? I've noticed in general, not you specifically, but in general religious types are seem very quick to hide behind semantics.

Actor wrote: »

Just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it moral.

I couldn't agree more. Serial killers appear in nature, as do rapists, child abusers and so on. It's one of the main reasons i'm an atheist - i can't believe any benign being would deliberately create such monsters and set them free on the world. My view is any creator is either a right <insert suitable expletive> or imaginary - either way he's not worth bothering with.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah 'cos romantic films are such a guide to real life.:rolleyes:

OK, I get the last bit, not sure anyone said you choose who to love as much as choosing how to love. And btw that can mean leaving them as much as sticking with it.
The thing is you seem to assume that falling in love trumps all else, I'm married 29 years and if I chased every one I fell in love with in the last 29 years I would not be still married. I chose not to, more than that; I chose my wife over them. The love I had was worth more than the love I thought I'd find. It's called growing up.

You've fallen in love with loads of other women while married to your wife? If that's true it's quite sad.
But what i think you're doing is confusing love with attraction, i can't walk down a busy street without seeing someone i'm attracted too, i don't however fall in love with them, there is a huge difference.

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Did you not say that being attracted to your own sex is not a sin, but acting on it is? Do you not think people should give up their auld sins?

What I think people should do is very different from what I tell people to do. I think people shouldn't waste their time watching soao operas - but I don't tell them what to watch on TV.

If you are not a Christian then giving up a few sins won't help you in the slightest. You might as well keep sleeping with whoever or whatever you like for all I care.

Is it too much of jump to put those two together and come up with what i said?

It would be too much of a jump if you were concerned about honesty.

I've noticed in general, not you specifically, but in general religious types are seem very quick to hide behind semantics.

And I've noticed that atheist types, not all of them but you and a few others specifically, are very quick to enforce your stereotypes about believers and tell untruths about them.

sbsquarepants

PDN wrote: »

What I think people should do is very different from what I tell people to do. I think people shouldn't waste their time watching soao operas - but I don't tell them what to watch on TV..

I assume you don't tell them you think they'll burn in hell for watching eastenders though.
Probably preferable to watching it in any case!

PDN wrote: »

f you are not a Christian then giving up a few sins won't help you in the slightest. You might as well keep sleeping with whoever or whatever you like for all I care..

I'm not and i will:)

PDN wrote: »

It would be too much of a jump if you were concerned about honesty.

And I've noticed that atheist types, not all of them but you and a few others specifically, are very quick to enforce your stereotypes about believers and tell untruths about them.

Again, it's semantics and it's yourself that's struggling with the concept of honesty. The whole i don't care what you do, i just think you'll burn for it line rings extremely hollow to me.

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I assume you don't tell them you think they'll burn in hell for watching eastenders though.
Probably preferable to watching it in any case!

I've never told anyone they would burn in hell for being gay either. :rolleyes:

Again, it's semantics and it's yourself that's struggling with the concept of honesty.

Right, so you misatttribute opinions to me and, when I point out your dishonesty, you dismiss it as semantics.

Where have I ever told anyone to stop being gay?

The whole i don't care what you do, i just think you'll burn for it line rings extremely hollow to me.

Yes, it would be much easier if other people always conformed to your misinformed preconceptions and stereotypes, wouldn't it?

qrrgprgua

Very interesting blog. There is also a video on ABC news.

Note:- I am not for one moment saying gay men should marry women.. just that's its interesting to see how this couple live a full filling marriage being 100% open and honest to each other. I heard some people say they are living a lie.. How quick people apply labels.

http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together

wolfsbane

Andrewf20 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are not immediately created by God at our conception - we are formed from Adam's seed. Adam's nature is what we are, not the original perfect creation.
But who created Adams nature?

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.



*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Mardy Bum

wolfsbane wrote: »

Andrewf20 said:

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.



*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Are you a creationist or are you taking that metaphorically?

wolfsbane

doctoremma said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, but I'm 62. When kids are indoctrinated with the normality of homosexuality - using a same-sex home in a reader without comment, for example - that is equivalent to teaching homosexuality is moral.
I don't think it is. I think it's teaching kids that there are a multitude of different peoples out there in the big world and that not everyone is the same. Isn't this part of how you instil respect for others? I don't see how you can instil respect for homosexual people by saying 'Here's Peter and Dave, they live together and kiss each other, that's deviant, you know'.

Can we not respect the rights of people who are immoral? Can we not regard them as our fellow-man, but doing things we don't approve of? I think we can. I do. I think people who worship idols are immoral - but I respect them as good neighbours, etc. My respect homosexual friends, just deplore their immoral sexuality. I do business with them, and treat them as I do my heterosexual friends.

We don't need to criticise homosexual couples when we use a home situation in school books - just use the heterosexual standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They would not have an incestuous home as a Janet & John type reader, I assume.
Incest is illegal. So no, I've never seen a book that presents this as an acceptable family situation (at least, not as a school book).

In some countries/states it is not illegal. In New Jersey, for instance. Would it be right for that state to use an incestuous couple as the mom & dad for their family model? Do you say that it would be OK to do so in Ireland if they made incest legal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Unless you think schools do not promote any morality?
Difficult to say. I'm not sure it's a school's job to promote morality in any way other than what is defined in law. I certainly don't think a school should be teaching that homosexuality is immoral or moral, more that it simply IS.

That's the problem we face - schools do teach morality. As you say, it is the morality currently defined by law - but if the law permits incest or polygamy or bestiality, is it right for any of that to be used as a model for the kids? (By model I mean an example of acceptable relationships).

By all means teach kids to respect the rights of all to choose how they relate sexually. But it is entirely wrong to teach them all forms of sexuality are moral.

********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

wolfsbane

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Are you a creationist or are you taking that metaphorically?

Creationist. The historic position of Christianity.

wolfsbane

PickledLime wrote: »

Granted, i fit the dictionary definition of 'adulterer' in that myself and my girlfriend are unmarried and have sex. I probably should have said that i reject the notion of it being sinful.

Because i'm an atheist i don't acknowledge the existence of religious sin. I do however, acknowledge the existence of moral sin. The 3 types of sexual sin are paedophilia, rape and (to a lesser extent because at least two consenting adults are involved), cheating on one's partner. You are classing all sex outside of marriage as 'sin'. So am i to be lumped in with the rapists and paedophiles?

I'm not saying your point of views are immoral, i'm saying that the majority would find them to be somewhat bizarre and rooted in religious zealotry. Myself and my girlfriend's relationship is the accepted norm, your views are not.

Yes, you are lumped in with the rapists and paedophiles in as far as your fornication is a sexual sin. Not as grave as theirs, but still sin.

But you are right about Christian sexual morality being a minority. So? What has that to do with it being true or not?

****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by wolfsbane;
That's the problem we face - schools do teach morality. As you say, it is the morality currently defined by law - but if the law permits incest or polygamy or bestiality, is it right for any of that to be used as a model for the kids? (By model I mean an example of acceptable relationships).

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

wolfsbane

twinQuins wrote: »

Should the state allow teaching that certain races are inferior? That women are the weaker sex?

You're damn right the state doesn't allow bigotry to be taught.

But you are bigoted enough to be happy for the state to ban polygamy and incest, and to classify paedophilia as perverse even if not acted on? Why are you not campaigning for their views to be respected? How come homosexuality gets equal moral status with heterosexuality in your world-view, but other sexual preferences and orientations don't?

Where does/should the State get its morality from, in your opinion?

*****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Mardy Bum

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist. The historic position of Christianity.

Ok so I take it you are not a Catholic then either. Is there any reason for your stance i.e the particular church you belong to or is it a personal decision?

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?
***********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Sin City

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? Wha

t morality do you say should be taught in schools?
***********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

informed consent cant be.given in the case of bestiality and depending on the age of incest , unturned consent also can't be given, also the genetics of any offspring could be at risk

comparing these to homosexuality is abhorrent

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

I think what Christians should be concerned about is introducing people to the Lord Jesus through evangelism, and it is as we introduce people to see the living Lord Jesus and as people accept Him as Lord and as people are encouraged to follow Him that true transformation in society can happen.

As Christians we pray in the Lord's prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed by thy name,
thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily bread,
forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us,
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever,
Amen.

Do we really believe it when we say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Do you realise how powerful that statement is?

It means, God's opinion trumps yours. God's word comes first. That means we speak and live by God's standards rather than the standards of a fallen world.

Cossax

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are bigoted enough to be happy for the state to ban polygamy and incest, and to classify paedophilia as perverse even if not acted on? Why are you not campaigning for their views to be respected? How come homosexuality gets equal moral status with heterosexuality in your world-view, but other sexual preferences and orientations don't?

Where does/should the State get its morality from, in your opinion?

*****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

You wouldn't ever just stick your signatures into...you know, a signature, would you?

The state should get its morality through a framework of consultation but where ultimately we allow as much freedom as possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with Dark Ages era prejudices.

As such, I can't see why the hypothetical state would have an issue with polygamy but to bring in incest, bestiality or pedophilia is muddying the waters at best and bigotry if we were to be uncharitable.

Mardy Bum

philologos wrote: »

I think what Christians should be concerned about is introducing people to the Lord Jesus through evangelism, and it is as we introduce people to see the living Lord Jesus and as people accept Him as Lord and as people are encouraged to follow Him that true transformation in society can happen.

As Christians we pray in the Lord's prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed by thy name,
thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily bread,
forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us,
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever,
Amen.

Do we really believe it when we say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Do you realise how powerful that statement is?

It means, God's opinion trumps yours. God's word comes first. That means we speak and live by God's standards rather than the standards of a fallen world.

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity, which in turn choose its own books for the bible; the huge revisions which each new author of the different books of New Testament made so as to make it more appealing to non believers. The difference from Mark to John is astounding. You do realise that the whole idea of Heaven didnt take shape until a good half century after Jesus died? Matthew's Kingdom of Heaven is taken from Mark's Kingdom of God which was to be on earth. Then by the time we get to John this has taken a lovely turn for the better. What about this wonderful line by Jesus to a woman looking for help "Its not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs".

My point is you cannot take morals from a book wrote for the sole purpose of trying to make people convert to the religion as something which modern day humans must adhere to. Morals are built on philosophical and ethical grounds without any need for a book wrote two thousand years ago.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?

What? racial supremacy was taught to kids one time, if legal then yes it should be part of the education.

It makes it legal. It makes it the norm.

See I don't disagree that you should fight your corner, but you have to accept the decision of the majority. Strangely I don't see homophobia as all that Christian. So we disagree, why should your view supersede mine?
By all means make your case but 'the bible tell me so' isn't much of a case for non bible believing types.

PDN

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity,

Hopefully he is better educated than to have any such idea. After all, Marcionism came along nearly a century after Paul wrote his epistles. oops!

philologos

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity, which in turn choose its own books for the bible; the huge revisions which each new author of the different books of New Testament made so as to make it more appealing to non believers. The difference from Mark to John is astounding. You do realise that the whole idea of Heaven didnt take shape until a good half century after Jesus died? Matthew's Kingdom of Heaven is taken from Mark's Kingdom of God which was to be on earth. Then by the time we get to John this has taken a lovely turn for the better. What about this wonderful line by Jesus to a woman looking for help "Its not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs".

My point is you cannot take morals from a book wrote for the sole purpose of trying to make people convert to the religion as something which modern day humans must adhere to. Morals are built on philosophical and ethical grounds without any need for a book wrote two thousand years ago.

Read the links in my signature. There's evidence to show that all of the New Testament books that we use were written from the first century, and used in the early church from that point onwards.

There's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly altered since the first century either, and there's more manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text.

What about that wonderful line from Jesus? Are we going to have a discussion about it in Mark chapter 7 for example?

Mardy Bum

PDN wrote: »

Hopefully he is better educated than to have any such idea. After all, Marcionism came along nearly a century after Paul wrote his epistles. oops!

I meant in relation to the formation of the New Testament as Marcion was the first to start collecting Christian writings two centuries before it started to coalesce.

Ignore the rest of the post though just to be careful.

philologos wrote: »

Read the links in my signature. There's evidence to show that all of the New Testament books that we use were written from the first century, and used in the early church from that point onwards.

There's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly altered since the first century either, and there's more manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text.

What about that wonderful line from Jesus? Are we going to have a discussion about it in Mark chapter 7 for example?

Ok lets take the one crowning example of a Biblical revision to suit the author at the time of writing, in Mark at the end of the crucifixion he comes out with the line "My god my god why have you foresaken me". In Luke he seems to have came upon some great realisation (it was written a decade later), "Father into your hands I commend my spirit" and then in John he knew what was going on the whole time "It is finished". Mark seems to be pretty inconvenient in that context.

The stories were written after Jesus died on second and third hand information. Any proper literary critic could go through the bible and point out numerous inconsistencies.

philologos

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Mardy Bum

philologos wrote: »

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Yes exactly and I am trying to point of the fallacies in responding to it from a biblical perspective. If a sexual act is consensual and is not inflicting pain or hurt on others directly then for all intents and purposes any Christian should deem it satisfactory.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

.....

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Well...if they think its a sin (whatever "it" might be) they'd be supposed to avoid doing "it". Those that do otherwise will be (according to that view) judged in the next life.

lmaopml

The idea of 'life' from a Christian perspective is that, every single 'life' comes as a gift from God and that the creation of life and the young is a 'Holy' thing -

Tell a parent in the labour ward that their child is not the biggest 'gift' to them that they have to cherish them now but watch the onslaught of others - Christianity is an extension of that childs right to life - an aspect of Christianity is being the voice of every single child, because it's children that know the simple joys even in deep poverty, they are more Christlike than most.

That's why children are a 'gift' - not a burden, they have a way of surprising! Although life sometimes can be very hard, most people find their 'joy' in their children, and not only that but also in their 'parents' too - who most likely sacrificed to give their life to them, which is something one may not entirely understand for some time, for their interest and growth in all ways of life. The world gets in the way so much - as a parent one would want to be a champion boxer not to see their children following the crowd in many ways.

Mardy Bum

lmaopml wrote: »

The idea of 'life' from a Christian perspective is that, every single 'life' comes as a gift from God and that the creation of life and the young is a 'Holy' thing -

Tell a parent in the labour ward that their child is not the biggest 'gift' to them that they have to cherish them now but watch the onslaught of others - Christianity is an extension of that childs right to life - an aspect of Christianity is being the voice of every single child, because it's children that know the simple joys even in deep poverty, they are more Christlike than most.

That's why children are a 'gift' - not a burden, they have a way of surprising! Although life sometimes can be very hard, most people find their 'joy' in their children, and not only that but also in their 'parents' too - who most likely sacrificed to give their life to them, which is something one may not entirely understand for some time, for their interest and growth in all ways of life. The world gets in the way so much - as a parent one would want to be a champion boxer not to see their children following the crowd in many ways.

The love felt after giving birth has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Actor

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Giving birth and the love felt afterwards has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Wha?

lmaopml

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Giving birth and the love felt afterwards has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Thank 'Evolution' that you are a valuable opinion...

Nah..don't think so just wait for the joy to make things more crystal clear, seeing your baby. There is nothing like being responsible for others and especially family, the needy the young and the old - that's where one begins to understand and reach out for God, because most of the time they know him better than you do. Or I.

But some don't, and won't. It's always been that way.

Andrewf20

wolfsbane wrote: »

Andrewf20 said:

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.

But why would a perfect nature that is sinless have an impulse to sin? A perfect being who is sinless would surely recognise sin and avoid it. If it doesnt then its not perfect in nature. Did God then create an imperfect nature in Adam, hence the fall?

philologos

Mardy Bum wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Yes exactly and I am trying to point of the fallacies in responding to it from a biblical perspective. If a sexual act is consensual and is not inflicting pain or hurt on others directly then for all intents and purposes any Christian should deem it satisfactory.

This thread is about what Christians believe about sexuality.

To say that Christians should live like atheists is useless.

There's nothing fallacious about consulting the Bible as a Christian. In addition I'm convinced that if you present any of your alleged fallacies on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that they will come to nothing.

tommy2bad

To say that Christians should live like atheists is useless.

But too many Christians insist that atheists live like Christians. In fact they try to make it illegal to live otherwise.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

But too many Christians insist that atheists live like Christians. In fact they try to make it illegal to live otherwise.

Ultimately yes I believe strongly that all should repent and believe.

But if someone asks what the Christian position on sexuality is, expect a Christian and biblically based answer.

If one is to live as a Christian it means following what God has commanded. I don't expect non-believers to care about this. I hope that they eventually do come to know Jesus.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately yes I believe strongly that all should repent and believe.

But if someone asks what the Christian position on sexuality is, expect a Christian and biblically based answer.

If one is to live as a Christian it means following what God has commanded. I don't expect non-believers to care about this. I hope that they eventually do come to know Jesus.

Im sorry, but I just dont see why God would actually care about sexual orientation or who is sleeping with who. Surely even homosexual sex is an expression of love, So why would God be upset with an expression of love which is consensual between two people.

Leave Bible quotes out of this , as anyone can counter with the Bible is written by imperfect man with hangups

philologos

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

I dont remember the thou shalt have sex with a man in the 10 commandments. If God loves us surely he should be happy when we find love no matter who it is with. Where does God say himself that being gay is wrong?

Im sorry but if God would punish or be displeased with someone over something they have no control over , that is not a fair God or a God I would be subjected to

Doesnt the Bible teach to kill those who dont believe, we dont tend to follow those rules though

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

I dont remember the thou shalt have sex with a man in the 10 commandments. If God loves us surely he should be happy when we find love no matter who it is with. Where does God say himself that being gay is wrong?

Im sorry but if God would punish or be displeased with someone over something they have no control over , that is not a fair God or a God I would be subjected to

Doesnt the Bible teach to kill those who dont believe, we dont tend to follow those rules though

If you're going to claim the Bible says something quote it.

In a number of passages Jesus defined a marriage between a man and a woman. Mark 12 for example and Matthew 19. Other writings in the New Testament such as 1 Coribthians 6 and Romans 1:26-27 mention homosexual acts as sin. The first context for marriage which was quoted by Jesus is in Genesis 2.

The Ten Commandments aren't the only guidelines that Christians live by.

People do have control over what they choose to do. I have desires, not all of them should be acted upon. Humans are rational creatures.

Delirium

Philo, can you show where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman in Mark 12 and Matthew 19?

Had a look at an online version and can't see in either passage where Jesus gives a definition of marriage.

wolfsbane

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ok so I take it you are not a Catholic then either. Is there any reason for your stance i.e the particular church you belong to or is it a personal decision?

The reason I am a creationist is because the Bible seems to clearly teach a recent, mature, creation. And I believe the Bible because God has convinced me that it is His word.

My church also believes it, and for the same reasons. The Christian church as a whole believed it, until relatively recently.

*********************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Sin City wrote: »

informed consent cant be.given in the case of bestiality and depending on the age of incest , unturned consent also can't be given, also the genetics of any offspring could be at risk

comparing these to homosexuality is abhorrent

So you would accept incest if it were between adults who used contraception? And would be happy to have an incestuous couple as mum & dad in your kids readers?

I'm using several forms of sexual perversion as examples to get you to think clearly. I'm not equating them other than as being sex outside marriage. You rightly rule out any that are not based on consent - so I'm asking if you are happy with consensual incest, polygamy, etc.

*******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Cossax said:

You wouldn't ever just stick your signatures into...you know, a signature, would you?

Not since my signature - a Bible verse - was banned/censored by the boards.ie moderator. Apparently it is an offence on a Christian forum to quote as a signature a Bible text that says women must not teach in the Church.

The state should get its morality through a framework of consultation but where ultimately we allow as much freedom as possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with Dark Ages era prejudices.

There is a difference between freedom and morality. We can uphold the freedom of those who have a different morality to ours. They can be free to hold and preach what we think nonsensical or immoral. But when the State comes to teach morality, then we must aim for a morality that is the lowest common denominator for our society. We can all agree that murder, rape, theft is immoral. But we do not agree on a lot of sexual relationships, so we have to pick stuff we do agree on. I think all regardless of their sexuality would find the historic mum & dad of kids' readers moral. Many would find other relationships moral - but many would not. We should go with the agreed stuff.

That way we do not face kids being taught homosexuality is either moral or immoral - just that some people are homosexual and have the same freedom has heterosexuals to be so. And the kids are not taught that religion is either moral or immoral - just that some people are religious and have the same freedom has atheists to be so.

As such, I can't see why the hypothetical state would have an issue with polygamy but to bring in incest, bestiality or pedophilia is muddying the waters at best and bigotry if we were to be uncharitable.

I've no problem with a State allowing polygamy or incest, providing it is consensual. Both are immoral, but are matters of individual freedom.

I brought the whole spectrum of sexual perversions in to challenge the idea that something is OK if its legal. You seem to agree with me on that.

******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

tommy2bad said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?
What? racial supremacy was taught to kids one time, if legal then yes it should be part of the education.

It makes it legal. It makes it the norm.

Wow! Racial supremacy should be taught in school if it is made legal!

OK, I see where you are coming from - but I wouldn't want my kids being taught it. As a citizen, I hope that enforcing disputed morality on school kids will not become the practise in my country.

See I don't disagree that you should fight your corner, but you have to accept the decision of the majority.

I don't agree that the majority should impose its morality on all.

Strangely I don't see homophobia as all that Christian.

Depends what you mean by homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals is not Christian; but hatred of homosexuality is. Christians are to hate all sin.

So we disagree, why should your view supersede mine?

You are free to have your views - I'm not imposing them on anyone. I just object to anyone imposing their views on me.

By all means make your case but 'the bible tell me so' isn't much of a case for non bible believing types.

It's not a matter of the freedom to believe one way or the other. I'm happy to tell you what God says and you are free to accept or reject that. What I'm objecting to is your view on homosexuality being imposed on me or my kids.

************************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would a perfect nature that is sinless have an impulse to sin? A perfect being who is sinless would surely recognise sin and avoid it. If it doesnt then its not perfect in nature. Did God then create an imperfect nature in Adam, hence the fall?

You offer your definition of 'perfect'.

But God is the Maker of all, so His definition of 'perfect' is the one I go by.

Why did He make men and angels originally with the ability to sin? He doesn't say.

***********************************************************************
Genesis 1: 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Sin City

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would accept incest if it were between adults who used contraception? And would be happy to have an incestuous couple as mum & dad in your kids readers?

I'm using several forms of sexual perversion as examples to get you to think clearly. I'm not equating them other than as being sex outside marriage. You rightly rule out any that are not based on consent - so I'm asking if you are happy with consensual incest, polygamy, etc.

*******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Honestly , the whole incest thing isnt my bag but if it with consent, I could possibly accept it. I mean the amounts of children out there with different fathers but the same mothers, if they grew up apart hadnt known about each other and went out got married then found out, would/could you condemn them?

As for polygymy you are supposed to give all of yourself to your wife, how can you do that with several women?

philologos

koth wrote: »

Philo, can you show where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman in Mark 12 and Matthew 19?

Had a look at an online version and can't see in either passage where Jesus gives a definition of marriage.

Matthew 19:3-6.
Mark 10:6-9

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

tommy2bad said:

Wow! Racial supremacy should be taught in school if it is made legal!

OK, I see where you are coming from - but I wouldn't want my kids being taught it. As a citizen, I hope that enforcing disputed morality on school kids will not become the practise in my country.
When dose it become undisputed? when 100% agree?

I don't agree that the majority should impose its morality on all.
Indeed democracy should never become the tyranny of the majority.

Depends what you mean by homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals is not Christian; but hatred of homosexuality is. Christians are to hate all sin.
I presume you mean hatred of anal sex.


You are free to have your views - I'm not imposing them on anyone. I just object to anyone imposing their views on me.

No one is, you are free to remain heterosexual and monogamous and creationist and Christian.
It's not a matter of the freedom to believe one way or the other. I'm happy to tell you what God says and you are free to accept or reject that. What I'm objecting to is your view on homosexuality being imposed on me or my kids.

And I object to your view being imposed on me and mine, or more accurately my view being censored so yours will have an advantage.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

And I object to your view being imposed on me and mine, or more accurately my view being censored so yours will have an advantage.

Where is either happening?