BigRedBuster Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I have another question. I know there are heterosexual marriages that are sexless. I think we would all be shocked at the number of them that are out there especially as people age. So, if two men or two women are married, love each other and are completely 100% committed to each other but are in a sexless marriage, is that still a "sin" and we all should be aghast at it and fighting against it? 1 Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I have another question. I know there are heterosexual marriages that are sexless. I think we would all be shocked at the number of them that are out there especially as people age. So, if two men or two women are married, love each other and are completely 100% committed to each other but are in a sexless marriage, is that still a "sin" and we all should be aghast at it and fighting against it? Really good question. I tend to be looser and more "liberal" than the majority of Christian thought, but I would say no, it's not sin, but it's also not a good idea. The sin of homosexuality is the sin of acting upon it sexually, ie it is essentially the sin of lust. If any person, regardless of orientation, isn't engaging in sexual activity and isn't entertaining sexual urges/desires, they're not in that sin, but then you go into an entirely different conversation of the appropriateness of relationships and the contexts in which those should play out. As far as that conversation, it seems very grey and I have no idea. David and Jonathan loved one another very deeply, I think the Psalms even says that David loved Jonathan more than any woman. It only seems to record that, though, and the Bible doesn't really celebrate or condemn it, at least as far as I know. Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I have another question. I know there are heterosexual marriages that are sexless. I think we would all be shocked at the number of them that are out there especially as people age. So, if two men or two women are married, love each other and are completely 100% committed to each other but are in a sexless marriage, is that still a "sin" and we all should be aghast at it and fighting against it? This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I have another question. I know there are heterosexual marriages that are sexless. I think we would all be shocked at the number of them that are out there especially as people age. So, if two men or two women are married, love each other and are completely 100% committed to each other but are in a sexless marriage, is that still a "sin" and we all should be aghast at it and fighting against it? Really good question. I tend to be looser and more "liberal" than the majority of Christian thought, but I would say no, it's not sin, but it's also not a good idea. The sin of homosexuality is the sin of acting upon it sexually, ie it is essentially the sin of lust. If any person, regardless of orientation, isn't engaging in sexual activity and isn't entertaining sexual urges/desires, they're not in that sin, but then you go into an entirely different conversation of the appropriateness of relationships and the contexts in which those should play out. As far as that conversation, it seems very grey and I have no idea. David and Jonathan loved one another very deeply, I think the Psalms even says that David loved Jonathan more than any woman. It only seems to record that, though, and the Bible doesn't really celebrate or condemn it, at least as far as I know. How about this. Let's all love and care for each other the way Jesus tried teaching us to do and leave the rest up to God. 3 Link to comment
Scratchtown Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 This helped me change my tone a bit. Although I wouldn't say I was hating the people. Anyway, it's a great read by a guy I trust and has a degree in apologetics.http://freakengministries.com/a-biblical-argument-for-gay-rights/ Link to comment
Ratt Mhule Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 This helped me change my tone a bit. Although I wouldn't say I was hating the people. Anyway, it's a great read by a guy I trust and has a degree in apologetics. http://freakengministries.com/a-biblical-argument-for-gay-rights/ "Moreover, if there is nothing objectively wrong with homosexual acts, there is also nothing objectively wrong with persecuting homosexuals and being intolerant of the LGBTQ community in general. We must keep our logical grounds of objective morality or nothing is objectively good, bad, right, wrong, fair, or evil. If atheism is true, the acts of Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy are morally equivalent and neutral in an objective sense. If there is nothing really wrong with anything, then there is nothing really (objectively) wrong with the beating, torture, and murder of Matthew Shepard because he was gay." Wow "At this point, to be logically consistent, the practicing homosexual should admit that God exists, the Bible is God’s Word, and that homosexual actions are objectively sinful. However, after making this point, they should state that they freely choose to ignore these objective moral values and duties, and that they freely choose to sin. By the way, they should point out that anyone heterosexual or otherwise, who is committed to a sexual lifestyle apart from the biblical model of marriage is just as objectively sinful as they are (that would be the vast majority of American college students)! My gay neighbor should point out that anyone committed to viewing internet porn is just as objectively wrong as they are. In fact, anyone who is committed to a lifestyle of any sin, from “little white lies” to rape and murder, are all morally reprehensible and objectively wrong. Anyone who does not hate his or her sin, and committed to fighting against it, is figuratively spitting in the face of Christ." Lol "With that in mind, the mark of a true Christian is one who hates their sin, not one who parades and flaunts it. Taking part in “gay-pride parades,” is probably a sign that one is committed to sin as opposed to hating it. As a loving warning, this is a very dangerous place to be. I am not the ultimate Judge, but if a true Christian hates their sin, it doesn’t seem like they would parade it." Don't tell me you actually believe this BS, do you? Link to comment
Scratchtown Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 This helped me change my tone a bit. Although I wouldn't say I was hating the people. Anyway, it's a great read by a guy I trust and has a degree in apologetics. http://freakengministries.com/a-biblical-argument-for-gay-rights/ "Moreover, if there is nothing objectively wrong with homosexual acts, there is also nothing objectively wrong with persecuting homosexuals and being intolerant of the LGBTQ community in general. We must keep our logical grounds of objective morality or nothing is objectively good, bad, right, wrong, fair, or evil. If atheism is true, the acts of Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy are morally equivalent and neutral in an objective sense. If there is nothing really wrong with anything, then there is nothing really (objectively) wrong with the beating, torture, and murder of Matthew Shepard because he was gay." Wow "At this point, to be logically consistent, the practicing homosexual should admit that God exists, the Bible is God’s Word, and that homosexual actions are objectively sinful. However, after making this point, they should state that they freely choose to ignore these objective moral values and duties, and that they freely choose to sin. By the way, they should point out that anyone heterosexual or otherwise, who is committed to a sexual lifestyle apart from the biblical model of marriage is just as objectively sinful as they are (that would be the vast majority of American college students)! My gay neighbor should point out that anyone committed to viewing internet porn is just as objectively wrong as they are. In fact, anyone who is committed to a lifestyle of any sin, from “little white lies” to rape and murder, are all morally reprehensible and objectively wrong. Anyone who does not hate his or her sin, and committed to fighting against it, is figuratively spitting in the face of Christ." Lol "With that in mind, the mark of a true Christian is one who hates their sin, not one who parades and flaunts it. Taking part in “gay-pride parades,” is probably a sign that one is committed to sin as opposed to hating it. As a loving warning, this is a very dangerous place to be. I am not the ultimate Judge, but if a true Christian hates their sin, it doesn’t seem like they would parade it." Don't tell me you actually believe this BS, do you? Do you not understand the angle he took? It comes straight out of the angle of apologetics. It also seems that you picked and chose (kinda like foxnews does) to make him sound like a horrible person. He ended with this if you didn't finish. At this point, the gay rights advocate should make this move and state: Since objective moral values and duties exist, it is objectively wrong to hate and persecute the LGBTQ community (two wrongs don’t make a right). Just as we do not typically persecute the heterosexual college students who engage in sexual activity before marriage, we ought not to oppress or torment the practicing homosexual. After all, we are all created in God’s image. Jesus taught to love everyone from our neighbors (Mark 12:31) to our enemies (Matt 5:44) and that includes those in the LGBTQ community. Christians should disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but it doesn’t follow that we should be jerks about it. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Christians should disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but it doesn’t follow that we should be jerks about it. If the truth is not received in love, then you are just making loud and obnoxious noise (1 Corinthians 13:1). Speak the truth in love, and as always… Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5) I can agree with this paragraph. As a Christian, I have no problem with someone believing that it is a sin if you, yourself partake in a gay sexual act. I have no problem with that any different than I don't have a problem with a Jew believing he shouldn't eat pork. Where it goes wrong is when Christians take that and think their duty is to condemn others for their actions. I also get frustrated in the first several paragraphs as it pertains to the gay marriage issue. It still goes back to him believing that if the government gives the right to gay people to get married, it somehow affects him or somehow he personally is condoning their lifestyle. That simply isn't the case. 1 Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If atheism is true, the acts of Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy are morally equivalent and neutral in an objective sense. If there is nothing really wrong with anything, then there is nothing really (objectively) wrong with the beating, torture, and murder of Matthew Shepard because he was gay. This might be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet. It's the same tired reasoning that morality only exists because of religion. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If atheism is true, the acts of Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy are morally equivalent and neutral in an objective sense. If there is nothing really wrong with anything, then there is nothing really (objectively) wrong with the beating, torture, and murder of Matthew Shepard because he was gay. This might be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet. It's the same tired reasoning that morality only exists because of religion. Well, if there is no higher power and no soul or spirit inside us and all we are is one big chemical reaction, then the feelings about a morality is nothing more than fake feelings produced by certain chemicals coming together in our brains to create that feeling. The purpose of the feeling about the morality really doesn't mean squat. I could come and rape and kill your daughter. The sadness and anger you feel is nothing more than chemicals in your body reacting to the event. Now that we are smart enough to realize this, we should simply be figuring out how to counter that reaction and there would be no grief in the world. No sadness and no negative emotion about events at all. After all, it's just a progression of the chemical reactions put in place after the big bang. Link to comment
Enhance Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 One thing fascinating to me is how time and culture changes what we deem acceptable as a society. For example, the ancient Greeks are considered to be extremely civilized for their era, especially when one weighs their attention to politics. Therefore, it may be shocking for some of you to know homosexuality was commonplace among the ancient Greeks. Many men, including extremely powerful businessmen or political figures, routinely indulged in homosexual acts with young boys/men. These same men also had wives. Now, this does not mean everybody was into it, however, it's just what people did at the time. It was everywhere, and society at the time accepted it as this is how things are. I don't offer this to be debated. I offer it just as another perspective for people to weigh and consider. Clearly, there are a lot more variables at play today than were at the time, especially since a lot of what we're talking about in today's culture is love/rights versus practicing homosexuality as a means of sexual release. But, I still find the Greeks an interesting people to consider in this debate. A very "civilized" culture took part in a very "sinful" action. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 * I hope it's not too stunning, but acknowledgement of physical realities of the brain not only doesn't negate the experience of human consciousness, or morality, or meaning, it's not tied to atheism, either. Logic exercises aren't a counter argument to neuroscience. So this doesn't really follow. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 * I hope it's not too stunning, but acknowledgement of physical realities of the brain not only doesn't negate the experience of human consciousness, or morality, or meaning, it's not tied to atheism, either. Logic exercises aren't a counter argument to neuroscience. So this doesn't really follow. It doesn't negate the experience. But, it makes the experience meaningless. Sure, you can choose to accept those feelings caused by those chemical reactions in the brain. But, why do we need to force others to follow those same feelings? If the kid that shot up the black church doesn't have those same feelings because his chemicals are reacting differently, why care? If we train ourselves to not care about that experience, then everyone should be happier because nobody is sad 9 people were killed. Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 All I can offer is that it doesn't. Hopefully, you can understand. You don't need to be religious to be human. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 One thing fascinating to me is how time and culture changes what we deem acceptable as a society. For example, the ancient Greeks are considered to be extremely civilized for their era, especially when one weighs their attention to politics. Therefore, it may be shocking for some of you to know homosexuality was commonplace among the ancient Greeks. Many men, including extremely powerful businessmen or political figures, routinely indulged in homosexual acts with young boys/men. These same men also had wives. Now, this does not mean everybody was into it, however, it's just what people did at the time. It was everywhere, and society at the time accepted it as this is how things are. I don't offer this to be debated. I offer it just as another perspective for people to weigh and consider. Clearly, there are a lot more variables at play today than were at the time, especially since a lot of what we're talking about in today's culture is love/rights versus practicing homosexuality as a means of sexual release. But, I still find the Greeks an interesting people to consider in this debate. A very "civilized" culture took part in a very "sinful" action. There is an awful lot about the greek empire that I would rather not emulate including the ultimate failure of their empire. Link to comment
Recommended Posts