TheSpiderFromMarsFeatured By OwnerDec 5, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I don't see any problems why a Christian person would have any problems if said person had "homosexual desires"? So what if you're homosexual, it doesn't stop you from believing in God. Heck, I know a priest that's gay. No problem whatsoever.
I was raised Catholic, and I heard more than one time that homosexuals are going to hell. Always from people who did not know I'm gay; I doubt they would say the same thing to my face. I mean, I eat shrimp, I shave, and I wear clothing of more than two materials.
It always felt weird to me to hear preachings of a god of love, and then hear than I am going to hell. Either god created us in his image, or he didn't. I am going to keep doing what feels right to me, and if that is wrong, then I hope someone saved me a seat in a bucket of ice water.
I'm for one a Christian who believes that its not a sin to be attracted to the same sex. Sure the Bible says that Eve was made for Adam and all that, but God was planning to to make a world how else would you make babies? I've never seen in the Bible simply saying that you can't be attracted to the same sex. I've seen where someone twisted the words a bit to get what they wanted out of it. Yet if God found it important to say "No Murder" then if it was important and this big sin people make it out to be wouldn't he just simply say "No Gays"?
I personally think that anyone who is struggling with same-sex desires and their religion should decided for themselves. If they come to the conclusion that yes, homosexuality is a sin and they shouldn't indulge in it, then by all means. If they decide that the Bible didn't really out right say that being gay was a sin, and go on to love someone of the same sex, then go right ahead! I only just when people are afraid to make a decision because of what other people are telling them. They shouldn't let others' opinions influence them. Only through introspection, a little soul-searching, and thought can they make a decision.
Ahh, sorry. That was really bad grammar. Let me try again.
I personally think that anyone who is struggling between their same-sex desires and their religion should decide what to do for themselves. If they come to the conclusion that yes, homosexuality is a sin and conflicts with their religion so they shouldn't indulge in it, then by all means. If they decide that the Bible never really out right saw that being gay was a sin, and they can be both Christian and a homosexual, then go right ahead! No one's preventing you from making your decisions. I'm not judging you, and no one else should either. I only judge when people are afraid to make a decision because of what other people are telling them. They shouldn't let others' opinions influence them to the point that they become indecisive. That'll only bring a lot of pain to themselves. They have to find their own truths which is only reached through introspection, a little soul-searching, and a lot of thought.
This question is thrown around Philosophy & Religion so much, you wouldn't believe it. I swear half the threads on here are about homosexuality Anyway, in response to your question.
I believe it comes from the Old Testament originally, but to be honest I think the main reason is that the Bible was written at a time when the human race was small in numbers and needed to reproduce. I believe it is quite a common theme, that love is between a man and a woman.
I'm not an expert, though. Just throwing in an opinion.
It's about half and half, I figure. Either "UHMUHGERD ATHEISTS R SO MEEEEAN"/"UR GOD DUNT EXIST RRGH" or "WHY DO THE HOMOSEX????". It's amazing how people keep finding ways to rephrase the same questions.
MatthewMattersFeatured By OwnerNov 17, 2012Professional General Artist
It's anything but a common theme. The Greek for few and many of the Asian cultures embraced homosexual relations. Some Asian cultures consider homosexuality a blessing and the Greek actually encouraged folks to do it.
It does indeed come from the Old Testament, as does a whole lot of other sick shit. Every Christian should read it because if that don't make one loose his or her faith I dunno what will -- especially when Jesus said "no" to only so many of the rules. And even then, Mark 16:17-18.
"It does indeed come from the Old Testament, as does a whole lot of other sick shit. Every Christian should read it because if that don't make one loose his or her faith I dunno what will -- especially when Jesus said "no" to only so many of the rules. And even then, Mark 16:17-18."
I know what'll make us not lose faith after reading the Old Testament - it's called scholarship! It's a dandy thing for understanding texts written 4000 years ago by people living on a different continent
MatthewMattersFeatured By OwnerDec 1, 2012Professional General Artist
Exactly. The shit made sense in it's time but it remains now in the bible just as it was written back then: and the bible states it absolute law of God. Believing on a "pick and believe" basis is hypocrisy.
Yeah, and I really can't stand hypocrisy I think one of the weirdest common church teachings I've heard is that everything in the Bible was written for everyone at all times... I think it's true that we can all learn something from the Bible, and the major principles and morals of the Bible stay the same throughout & we should follow them today. But a lot of the specific laws in the OT were written for the Jews at the time, & I think it's fine to go with that Haha unless God thinks it's important that I, in 21st century Canada, get the appropriate amount of shekels if my neighbor's bull gores our slave?
Personally I think the question about homosexuality is silly. Some people like people of their own sex, no big deal. Unless they are making a tangible negative impact on your life(personal discomfort doesn't count), leave them alone.
And if you are homophobic, the solution is simple: Don't spend time with gay people.
Unless they are making a tangible negative impact on your life(personal discomfort doesn't count), leave them alone.
- Oh, but gays are totally sweet, there isn't any one who harassed!I had bad moments in my life regarding harassment and it's partly why I treat the pro and con of gay rights with neutrality while mocking blatant assumptions from both sides.
Well, how would you feel like as a man who have no interest into any men or women to be sexually harassed by 4 different homosexuals for a good amount of time while no one wants to help me out? See where am I coming from?
Asides, yes I'll admit I am an asshole as I am a misanthropic individual who tries to look from a neutral perspective. Care to have a guess at the blatant assumptions that some people of the pro and con of the gay rights debate makes? This doesn't go for every one of them in the pro and con side.
As for pro's assumptions ----- 1. Homophobes are always guaranteed to have little knowledge of what homosexuality is.
Fact: Homophobic behaviors and thoughts does not always have to do with the degree of knowledge of what homosexuality is. That being said, one could be a homophobe and have indepth knowledge of sexuality.
2. Homophobes are gay themselves because that arousal study regarding homophobes proves so.
Fact: While arousal could be a sign of homosexual tendencies from homophobes, there is no guarantee that homophobe is in fact homosexual when there are studies that have shown subjective arousal is different than physiological arousal (asexual female study, physiological arousal and subjective arousal analysis (not sure the name of the study, but I will try to find it as it's hard to find it), and there is observations of disassociated arousal)
3. Homosexuals are angelic people who have done no wrong. (Yes, I have heard people who claims that homosexuals are incapable of abuses and all of that from misinterpretation of gay parents studies and politics.)
Fact: Homosexuality has nothing to do with innocence of their behaviors the same way that heterosexuality has nothing to do with the innocence of their behaviors. This stems from the misinterpretations of what the pro-gay people have to say about their problems. So why does this keep coming up when it gives the wrong impression? A better argument is that homosexual attraction doesn't have to do with the moral direction of one's individual.
4. Homophobes are raised that way.
Fact: This assumptions derives from the observation that religious zealots tends to spread hatred and fear of homosexuals, but it misses the fact that there are homophobes who may be in that way because of negative experiences with homosexuals (i.e harassment) and has little to do with the social atmosphere while some of them are secular themselves.
--------- For homophobes --------- 1. Being gay is not "natural".
Fact: This would be more or less wrong depending on what natural means. With this being said, it wouldn't be a proper argument if we're assuming that natural means a natural byproduct of nature since it been observed by plenty of studies that homosexuality is in fact natural in terms of the inevitable result of nature regardless of genetic, environmental, minute-difference changes from choices in life, etc...
2. Homosexuals are immoral bastards.
Fact: Homosexuality has nothing to do with the behavior or morals of individuals themselves as shown in the varieties of different moral compasses in different homosexual. One can be a sweet homosexual while one can be a psychopathic homosexual. Any arguments that has to do with allowing or disallowing people to do anything they want as an extension of their identity is set up to fail as the extension of identity has nothing to do with moral compass of individuals themselves.
(Insert more obvious homophobic assumptions and why it isn't any good of a position)
In your example you prove my point. It is not that they are homosexual that is the problem, it is that they are attracted to you and are dicks about it. The problem is that they harass you, not that they are gay. You see what I am saying here?
And I didn't accuse you of being an asshole, if that is what you got from it.
Don't even bother the person you are talking to is homophobic he believes fantasies about hurting homophobics is barbaric but that a country killing gays for being gay her responded with that he doesn't care.
Oh yes, I get what you're saying. They aren't helping their positions or the group they're associated with. If they're still doing it to some other guys, well, they're just supporting certain assumptions that aren't really helping them.
I used to be a Christian once, and I thought that I was straight. But it turns out that I was bisexual. But anyway, I sat there and thought about this stuff, and it was hard for me to decide what to do. I can't choose not to be bisexual. I knew that if I continue to be bisexual, and like I said, it's not a choice, I would go to hell, according to the bible, and if I choose not to believe, I would go to hell anyway, if the day comes, and God is proven to be real. I thought about that for a while, and I chose to stop believing, but that hadn't been the true reason for me to stop believing, I had been questioning God all my life.
Mm, sounds more like those beliefs were according to whatever church you went to, not according to the Bible. According to the Bible, we're all sinners, and our salvation comes from believing in Jesus. Personally, I believe homosexual urges are sinful, but no more sinful than bunch of the things anyone else feels. I can't say what happens when someone believes that but still chooses to act on their homosexuality... I can say that for me, if I were gay to any extent, I'd choose to put it aside to follow Jesus. There are more important thing than getting to sleep with whoever I want
We all question God. It's hard to put our faith in what we can't immediately see. God doesn't see a bisexual or a homosexual as needing more saving than a heterosexual. He doesn't reject your prayers because you're bisexual, or not places miracles and blessings in your life. I'm not sure which "Christian" God you used to believe in, because there are lots of people who claim to be Christian and tell others (maybe told you) to worship God their way or God will reject you.
The truth is, even on our greatest, most "holy" of days, they are filthy rags to God, because we are flawed and to be judged to death. But God came as Jesus and was the sacrifice to die in our place. You might have heard this story before, but the only people who go to hell are not homosexuals or bisexuals. God sees us all the same. Sinners who need Jesus in our lives. If you've accepted Christ as your savior back when you were Christian, he hasn't left you. I'd encourage you to look to God once more, because the truth is, he loves you and wants to bless you with his grace and goodness.
I also love this comment someone made on that article:
"I struggle with how we are to handle this issue. Is it really a good idea for us to say to people, 'This thing which is a part of you that you didn’t choose, you must not let it be a part of your identity.' It seems evil to say to people that they can never experience any sort of positive connection with their sexuality. We go on and on about the joys of heterosexual marriage and sexuality, and at the same time we tell these people that anything they do, ever, that is a natural expression of their sexuality is evil and cuts them off from God. Does no one else see a problem with that?"
I'm very sympathetic to the last question/comment. There is a general insensitivity in the church towards homosexual in this way - In the same way that the church presents heaven and hell as a "party upstairs, torture in the basement". It comes across as insensitive and abrasive.
However, trying to say that we should allow people to do anything as an extension of their identity, inheritance, genetics, etc. doesn't work realistically. One must reach the position on homosexuality another way.
I love how she misses the argument is set up to fail anyway if we're going to make a basis out of it without derailing into another thesis statement. Considering that she misses "to allow people to do anything they want" which has to do with behaviors and sexuality itself has little to do if any with the behavior of individuals itself, I don't think she'll be able to get how she's intentionally derailing herself from the thesis statement. There's all different kind of heterosexuals/homosexuals with all different kind of behavior which has to do with sexuality which is more or less appropriate. She's just arguing from another way.
I love how he claims I missed your point when I specifically addressed it in my reply be mentioning only not allowing people to express a trait in a way that harms others, while still allowing that innate trait to be expressed if they find a way to do so that does not. It's almost like he didn't read a single word I said before whining that I didn't get your point.