Sorry about the double-post

..if the christian majority can accept that people are born with defects, conditions and differences...and that it's not their fault they were born that way....why is it that homosexuality is seen as a 'choice'? That, to me, is like saying that a person is schizophrenic by choice, or near sighted by choice.

So...you're equating homosexuality to mental illness? Actually, back in recent mental health history, it used to be that way. Homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. Of course, that has changed within the past few years.

As a Christian, I see homosexuality as sin, just as lying is sin, killing is sin, being greedy is sin. I see myself as just as much a sinner as a homosexual person. I think certain things happen in the life of someone who is homosexual to push them to be that way, and some people's chemical make-up just gives them a greater tendency to be homosexual. I DO NOT THINK IT IS RIGHT to treat homosexuals disrespectfully or hatefully. Everyone needs a little love...and it's Christians' jobs to love people so that they can see and experience the love of Christ.

So...you're equating homosexuality to mental illness?

Umm, no.  I also refer to near sightedness.  Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness.

 

Hmmmmm...and...my standard for the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality comes from the Bible. The old testment, as well as the new testament blatantly say that homosexuality is wrong. But scriptures also say that lots of other things are wrong and just as "bad."

I take the Bible literally. If God is omniscent and omnipresent (and He is!), He knows how stupid humans are, and how we try to take apart His word and take it out of context and make it say what we want it to say so that we don't have to change our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and ways of life.

But I believe that God has preserved His Word. I believe that what I read in English still has the same meanings it did in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. I don't think that an omniscent and omnipresent God would allow His Word to become mush for today's people, who He loves just as much as He loved His Israel. I think its real, true, and always applicable, unchanged, and a standard and a challenge for all people...myself included!.

But that's just me.

"Umm, no. I also refer to near sightedness. Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness."

But it is still a "defect", which kind of goes against the spirit of your argument, I think. That was the whole reason I started talking about "cure", earlier, and got jabbed for it...

I think its real, true, and always applicable, unchanged, and a standard and a challenge for all people...myself included!

But I keep hearing how certain things Jesus said that are recorded in the New Testament invalidate what was written in the Old Testament. If that is so, wouldn't that mean that his word was changed and is not always applicable?

Jesus said:

"I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."

As far as what stays and what goes, it is pretty much dependant on your flavor of Christianity. I know people who are Christians and hold to a great deal of Jewish law; diet, sabbath, and such; and I know Christians that appear to come from a different planet in terms of "law".

No different than any other religion, I guess.

As far as what stays and what goes, it is pretty much dependant on your flavor of Christianity. I know people who are Christians and hold to a great deal of Jewish law; diet, sabbath, and such; and I know Christians that appear to come from a different planet in terms of "law". No different than any other religion, I guess.

That's what confuses me about Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally." Do they take every word and passage literally? Are there parts of it that override other parts? If you say that Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves overrides the rather horrific instructions in books like Leviticus, does it not follow that such precedence of Biblical entries would apply to condemnation of gays?

< did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

If you are asking my personal opinion, I think that Jesus changed the reaction to sin more than the definition of sin. That was my point previous. What homosexuals do sexually is between them, their partner and God. What they do politically is my business because it is my nation, too.

To me, Jesus removed that whole "priest class" hedge between God and the average person, which also removes the right to impose the "rather horrific instructions" you refer to. Like stoning the prostitute that people often refer to. No one is sinless, so no one really has the right to condemn people and enact bibilical law.

I don't see anything in Jesus' teachings, though, that would suggest we shouldn't express our values when taking part in the political process, though. People tend to confuse the condemnation of sin with the condemnation of the sinner. I can't be holier-than-thou to homosexuals, because I am no "cleaner", but I certainly can't acquiesce and say that what they do isn't sin. That would be denying MY religion to save their feelings.

This isn't an issue of Christians condemning fouls sinners, it is an issue of two groups in conflict over whether it IS sin or not. People just can't tell the difference between condemning someone, and condemning the acts the commit.

near sighted by choice

An interesting analogy... In fact, I am nearsighted by choice. It was not a conscious choice, made once and ready to be unmade at any time, but an unforeseen or underestimated consequence of a long series of choices.
I was not nearsighted when I was born. I had perfectly good eyesight as a young child. But after I learned to read, my viewing behavior changed. As a result, I needed glasses at the age of 8.
Over the course of time, my prescription got stronger and stronger. Now my eyeballs are pretty well set in their current shape, and I don't expect any more significant shifts in my prescription (barring illness or disease).

I actually view this as a very good analogy for homosexuality. I had certain genetic predispositions to various behaviors (quiet, able to focus on one thing for long periods, intelligent, etc.) which, combined with an environment that fostered and encouraged reading, brought out those behaviours (sitting and reading for hours at a time). I had no idea, or at least very little, that this would cause me to become nearsighted. (My parents did, I'm sure, but let's ignore that for now.) I see homosexuality as following essentially the same pattern; the difference is that while some genetic predispositions may be known in a general fashion (think of whatever stereotypical gay trait you want, it's stereotypical for a reason), the environmental factors that transform those predispositions into an outcome are unknown.

So there are choices to be made that will lead one toward homosexuality, but they are not conscious "I think today I'll become gay" choices. Homosexuality is an unintentional, unforeseen by-product of a long series of other choices made during one's early development, as influenced by one's genetic heritage. By the time you become sexually aware, your preferences have already been set. And since you don't understand how they have been set, there is no methodology for changing them.

So there are choices to be made that will lead one toward homosexuality, but they are not conscious "I think today I'll become gay" choices. Homosexuality is an unintentional, unforeseen by-product of a long series of other choices made during one's early development, as influenced by one's genetic heritage. By the time you become sexually aware, your preferences have already been set. And since you don't understand how they have been set, there is no methodology for changing them.

Very well put. There is a fine line between choice and genetic pulses, making it difficult to fathom either. I don't believe anyone would wilfully change his or her orientation just for the hell of it, though, I trust, those caught up in that kind of environment and on the fence could conceivably make a choice; still, it cannot rule out the deep-seated impulse telling them that they are different and thus constricted by the lonliness of the closet.

I don't understand how anyone could think this would ever be possible. There are an unlimited amount of analogies you could use to illustrated this. How do to 'change' what you prefer...

Read the book Beyond Gay by David Morrison, then you'll understand. I can't explain it, I can just offer examples of cases where it has happened.

Well if you care to read the entire thread you will see that I mentioned superannuation.

I think at this point, anyone has the right to skim through this thread and even skip some parts if they want to...

I don't see anything in Jesus' teachings, though, that would suggest we shouldn't express our values when taking part in the political process, though. People tend to confuse the condemnation of sin with the condemnation of the sinner. I can't be holier-than-thou to homosexuals, because I am no "cleaner", but I certainly can't acquiesce and say that what they do isn't sin. That would be denying MY religion to save their feelings.

But why should we care what YOUR religion is when making our laws?

did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

Exactly. Thus my confusion. A Christian telling me, "I take the Bible literally," is meaningless to me because I have heard so many different interpretations on that statement.