The Christian attitude towards homosexuality has my mind reeling! and I can't stop thinking about the reasons for such antagonism aside from the millenia old printed word passed down to them.

It's getting harder for me to find distinction between Religion and Revivalism nowadays - perhaps I need to step back and think about it a bit more... .... ... okay did that, now let me spill. I've rationalised now why I went through a bitter stage towards Revival, and it wasn't their stupid tongues doctrine, it wasn't their stupid rules, it was the exact same reason why JWs annoy me so much: They think they have a 'truth' that I don't see and therefore makes me inferior to them. They have a permanent 'smirk' (a smile that 'irks') that makes the very act of smiling seem obscene.

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm saying that every member of Revival and Religion are smirk jerks but there is a quality in their mindset that is completely detestable to me.Most Revivalists are good people... trustworthy, honorable individuals who treat others as they would like to be treated and do their best to love their community. Of course, that all applies equally to atheists and people of other beliefs. Most atheists are good people. Most Jews are good people. You get the idea. In essence, most people are good people, regardless of which religious tradition (or lack thereof) in which they were raised. Christians will then reply that, "no, in fact the world is most evil and corrupt", but I just don't see the world that way. It depends where you're standing.

There is something much worse than tongues gospel but it all smells the same to me. I can't pin point it yet... maybe if I keep typing.

What I see a lot of in religion and what I hate about the Revival churches is the condemnation and separation. Note... I don't say I hate religion or Revival, it's just these two aspects I rally against. If religion isn't a bridge, but is instead a wedge and isn't about inclusiveness of other people's view.. not just that others 'have' their view then it's going to separate us and destroy us. This is why there's war and strife... the solid concept that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm doing that right now as a matter of fact. It's a human trait that stops us from feeling stupid all the time.

the fact is that revivalists and religion, by definition seek to assimilate their beliefs without giving into the debate. I've just been chatting with Shiner about whether Christians find non-christians inferior, but maybe that's not it. Surely they find themselves infinitely luckier than non-christians because their beliefs will save them from eternal pain and give them eternal life and happiness. Sure, other people may be good but the non-religion/revivalist cannot possibly be as good as the them. 

That's what I mean when I say that religion can be divisive. Believers such as our friendly Revivalists are indoctrinated to believe that theirs' is the one true faith. Their god beats all others. Their morality is the only true one. Their fellowshippers are more worthy, deserving, etc. than everyone else. I had that type of prejudice in my life for far too long.

Reply to : MothandRust

Must not engage ... must not engage ... too late ...

---

What I see a lot of in religion and what I hate about the Revival churches is the condemnation and separation.

---

From a purely philosophical perspective ... aren't you condemning and separating yourself from " condemnation and separation" or at least from those people who in the name of religon "condemn and separate"?

Have you read any of Ravi Zacharias' material? IMHO anyone who thinks about philosophy and religon should find his material thought provoking.

Cheers

---

aren't you condemning and separating yourself from " condemnation and separation" or at least from those people who in the name of religon "condemn and separate"?

---

Yes, I think that was the bit where I realised the irony and said, " I'm doing that right now as a matter of fact. It's a human trait that stops us from feeling stupid all the time."

I'll look up Ravi some time, thanksya.

---

1) The Christian attitude towards homosexuality has my mind reeling! ......2) Christians will then reply that, "no, in fact the world is most evil and corrupt", but I just don't see the world that way. It depends where you're standing.

---

1) homosexuality - my personal view is - I LOVE homosexuals and I believe that Jesus does also but I don't LIKE what they do and I don't believe that Jesus does either, does that make sense?

2) the ' world' - again my pesonal view - I don't believe that the ' world' is most evil and corrupt even though we had that preached to us at EVERY RF meeting week in and week out. The world is made up of people - people like you and  like me, with hearts, minds & souls. Scratch us all and we bleed just the same.  I realise now that I am beginning again to be able to relate to ALL people regardless of their religion or lack thereof.  We are all on a journey of life - some believe in God, some don't.  To think of all the years I thought I HAD to tell people (the ' world') what they HAD to do to be saved!  Nowadays I just tell them that God loves them, that's all. When I was in RF I would quite self righteously walk past (e.g.) the old drunk in the gutter with vomit in his beard and not give him another thought.  Now that I have discovered that there is so much more than that narrow-minded RF view of the ' world'  I can walk up to that same person, buy him a coffee & a pie and just tell him that God loves him - not to make me ' feel' that I am doing my ' Christian duty'  but because Jesus said that what we do for the ' least of these'  we do for Him.  I am learning the meaning of compassion and tolerance and I feel I have a lot of time to make up for, if that makes sense. I pray that I will NEVER stand in judgement of others again and will always be ready help whoever I can, not for any motive of hoping they  become Christians, but just to help them and love them.  Life has become very different for this simple little sea urchin these days and I am learning some valuable life lessons.

S U

---

homosexuality - my personal view is - I LOVE homosexuals and I believe that Jesus does also but I don't LIKE what they do and I don't believe that Jesus does either, does that make sense?

---

I don't really love anyone unless I know them really really well, and I really don't think I'd actually like what homosexuals do either. They do though and good on 'em if it works for them.

I suppose you could assume Jesus doesn't like what they do. I don't believe Jesus ever played with a hula hoop... he certainly didn't say he did. Do any of the words in red that Jesus said ever denounce homosexuality? Do any of the words in black ever denounce lesbians?

Thinking out loud as usual

I've steered well clear of  commenting on this  topic  Knowing that I'm biased by my up-bringing, age group, and  being an ex Cop to who sodomy was a crime. Dont  know if I'll ever manage to overcome that, but I 'm learning to be tolerant, unjudgemental, and above all loving, in the sense of caring.

As a Christian, I'm required to love my neighbour as myself, in that  caring sense, without exception. Some of my neighbours may be homosexual, gay , un-married, or whatever. I would'nt know,   I'm not required to like the way they live their lives, but  neither am I entitled to persecute them , or look down on them. That would be wrong. That was the whole point of the parable of the good Samaritan.

 So for me,  that goes for  members  of any other group, who might have differing ideas, views, philosophys, skin colour , or nationality. or pracises  sexual or otherwise. I'm  only required to tell the world of Gods love , for all,  through His son Jesus,  and practise it.  it;s between them and God after that. I dont see my role as that of critic, judge and jury, never have. They can read the Bible and come to their own conclusions just as I have. Since leaving the Rev cult I've accessed a mine of different opinions on what I believe,  many attacking it, picking holes in it. This is a  free forum (i hope) where many differing opinions are expressed, and I think we all learn from it.

One thing I am sure of, no matter what anyone believes, the over riding principles that  SHOULD govern ALL our lives in this world are love and tolerance. It's the lack of those that's the worlds biggest problem. I feel. Saddly many of us Christians seem to be lacking in that department. The fact that it takes non Christians to remind us is shamefull, and I am ashamed.

Thus endeth the first lesson. Amen.  

to Old H,

Well said my friend. and i think in general that is most of our views. you wisdom shines throuhg again

earth5

---

Yes, I think that was the bit where I realised the irony and said, "I'm doing that right now as a matter of fact ... "

---

You're right of course. I didn't read carefully. Thanks for being so polite!!!

(My error ... not many I talk with or read are self-aware [honest?] enough to recognise [admit?] that irony, and I put your post in that basket. )

At least the pointer to Ravi remains. Interestingly, he deals with the philosophical principle that truth doesn't really (as opposed to apparently) contradict itself.

In my studies, one of the aspects I have to deal with is homosexuality. The old.. " Nuture versus nature" debate rises its head again. To give some slight back up my previous posts on this subject, I'd like to quote some interesting studies that have been done. I'm going to quote straight from my text book here, however, I have edited it a little as it is quite labourious, but not enough so that it takes away from what the studies show. Quotes from the book... PSYCHOLOGY.. Concepts and Connections..Spencer A. Rathus. 8th Edition. Page 342. ( If ya wanna check it! lol! ) Bare with me.. Its a very interesting study.

" Vision is normally the dominant sense in humans. We tend to gather more information about other people by looking at them than by smelling or touching them. ( Wade, 2005 ) In the film " Scent of a woman", however, Al Pacino played a blind man who was drawn to women by their odour. Are there odours that are characteristic of the other sex? If so, how important are they in determining sexual attraction? Some answers are suggested by a study by Swedish researchers ( Savic et al., 2005 ) who used PET scans to show that gay and heterosexual men responded differently to smelling chemicals that may affect sexual arousal, and that gay men respond similarly to women. The study involved suspected PHERAMONES, which are chemicals emitted by a member of the species to evoke a response in another member of the species. previously, researchers have found that pheramones may... provide a basis for sexual communication at a level BELOW conscious awareness. The study investigated the effects of two chemicals: A testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. Most odours activate neurons in specific regions of the brain, increasing the blood flow to these regions and causing them to " light up" when imaged by the PET scan. The estrogen-like compound activated the usual smell-related areas in women, but it "LIT UP" the HYPOTHALAMUS.. ( A structure in the brain that involves sexual behaviour )...in heterosexual men. The chemical extracted from MALE sweat, did the opposite. It activated the hypothalamus in WOMEN and the usual smell-related areas in men. Each odour seemed to be just another odour with one sex, but a 'pheramone' to the other. GAY men in the study, however, RESPONDED TO THE CHEMICALS AS WOMEN DID. That is, their HYPOTHALAMUS was "LIT UP" by the chemical drawn from male sweat. It must be noted that the Swedish study does not reveal 'cause and effect'. A "snapshot" was taken of the brains functioning at a point in time. If sexual orientation has a genetic basis, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, it might be that the neurons in the 'hypothalamus' become hard-wired in a way that shapes sexual orientation. Conversely, the findings could mean that experience leads straight men and gay men to respond in different ways. I any event, the study DOES SUGGEST a role for pheramones in human sexual respose and lays groundwork for further research."

So.. once again.. the debate rises.... Is it " Nature or nuture"???? There is more to follow so stay tuned!

Regards, Bindi

Shameless cut-and-pastes...

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9853.htm

1) Not all that was forbidden or commanded the OT Jew carries the same injunction for the Christian. The Mosaic laws could also be used to condemn most Christians. Work is forbidden on the Sabbath (Saturday), as well as clothing woven of two different fibers (cotton-polyester blends), all pig meat (bacon), women wearing men's attire (pants) and men who clip their beards. The Law commands us to have our mildew ridden clothes inspected by a priest. New mothers would have to be expelled from church an entire month after giving birth if Christians observed the Law. Are we still under the Law? Why would one require it still of gays?

2) Some justify extra criticism regarding the supposed sin of homosexuality given the characterization "abomination." They seem to fail to realize that the same word in Leviticus relating to homogenital contact ("abomination" - Hebrew: toevah) is also used to describe many other practices, some of which are rather innocuous today. The things that were toevah to the Hebrews include: sex with menstruating women (Lev 18:22), the silver and gold of idols (Deut 7:25), the rabbit, the pig and shellfish (Deut 14:3-21), psychics (Deut 18:9-12), unfair weights and measures (Deut 25:13-16), women who wear men's clothes (Deut 22:5), a man who remarries his divorced wife (Deut 24:4), a women who defends her husband by crushing his opponent's genitals (Deut 25:11-16), as well as any person who disobeys the law (Prov 28:9).

3) Some like to single out homosexuality as an especially heinous sin because of the penalty that was attached to it - death. Yet, capital punishment was also the OT sentence for manslaughter, kidnap, children who cursed their parents, people who did any manner of work on Saturdays, adherents to other religions, contempt of court and refusal to obey one's parents. (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:16, 17, Ex 35:2, Dt 13:9, Dt 17:12, Dt 21:21)

http://thalesianfools.blogspot.com/2007/05/should-christians-condemn-gay-sex.html

As biblical scholars have noted in recent years, Scripture does not unambiguously point to any particular stance on the homosexual question. Even the conservative theologian Richard Hays, who has written about his conviction that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian life, argues persuasively that scriptures' scant references to homosexuality is largely irrelevant to contemporary moral discussions of the matter. Scripture is not a firm ground here.

What about the injunction of Leviticus 19:22, "[A man] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination"? This command was a part of the Jewish Purity Code, which was cultural-religious code, not a moral one. So, these prohibitions are simply provisional, aimed at separating Israel from its historical neighbors. For example, the eleventh chapter of Leviticus concerns clean and unclean foods, yet these laws lose their binding force as they have no moral validity (Mark 7:19). This reading is further supported by this line, "Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things they have done filled me with disgust for them" (Leviticus 20:23). In order to fulfill His promise to send a Messiah to Israel, Israel could not be absorbed into the surrounding culture. (Homosexual intercourse was a regular part of worshiping Baal, to whom many Israelites defected.)

For this reason, it is key that we turn to experience. Naturally, promiscuous sexual behavior driven by personal cravings involves treating people as mere means for release. However, I think that many gay men and lesbian women in monogamous, committed relationships would testify to the myriad goods that such relationships provide: pleasure, communication, emotional growth, personal stability, long-term fulfillment, and intimacy. Sexual and physical affection is an important element in the cultivation of these human goods and is thus clearly a component of happiness and flourishing for gays and lesbians. Such sexual interaction is not, like promiscuous relations, about the private satisfaction of desires because it is an inherently social or interpersonal good. Thus, I think the experience of people in the gay community provides substantial counter-evidence to the Church's teaching.

Experience is the most valuable source of moral knowledge available because God reveals Himself to us in a continuous, living revelation. But, God's ways are not our ways -- so we should be prepared to have our tradition and expectations shaken by the Holy Spirit's teaching throughout history. If we listen to the Holy Spirit's gentle whispers, I think the message we hear is rather queer.

---

Shameless cut-and-pastes...http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9853.htm1) Not all that was forbidden or commanded the OT Jew carries the same injunction for the Christian. The Mosaic laws could also be used to condemn most Christians. Work is forbidden on the Sabbath (Saturday), as well as clothing woven of two different fibers (cotton-polyester blends), all pig meat (bacon), women wearing men's attire (pants) and men who clip their beards. The Law commands us to have our mildew ridden clothes inspected by a priest. New mothers would have to be expelled from church an entire month after giving birth if Christians observed the Law. Are we still under the Law? Why would one require it still of gays?2) Some justify extra criticism regarding the supposed

---

God made Adam and Eve

He didn't make Adam and Steve!

Homosexuals are now and have always been outside of God's will for his creation. We can try to justify the practice all we like but  God will judge.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Gays no more or no less than any other hetrosexual.

Personally I do not expect to see "practicing Homosexual" people in heaven. Thats just my opinion.

Doesn't Romans make it pretty clear that this is so? You tell me!

---

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Gays no more or no less than any other hetrosexual.

Personally I do not expect to see "practicing Homosexual" people in heaven. Thats just my opinion.

Doesn't Romans make it pretty clear that this is so? You tell me!

---

You gave Homosexuality a capital H Luke... like you do Tongues?

"He didn't make Adam and Steve!"  -wow, hadn't heard that argument before, you're good! NOT . He didn't make... Madam and Eve either (ha, now that was original... I think... that's funny enough to put in my blog... are you enjoying reading my blog GWM?), but scripturally is there something wrong with women rubbing their parts together?

Thanks for your opinion Lukey (you've plenty of stupid ones like that) and excuse my brashness, but did you even read the previous post or were you too excited about getting the tired old Adam and Steve reference out there? It was really really interesting. Perhaps you might comment on that previous post before we proceed?

Actually I can't imagine anyone in the next life even practicing heterosexuality... do you think we get to keep genetalia with our new bodies? Oh you don't mean you don't expect to see 'the act' happening in heaven do you? haha, sorry, you meant to say that you don't think anyone practicing that particular sex crime (as you see it) will be joing you in the next life. Glad you not da judge eh? But then you're stupid enough to think that anyone who can't garble their language won't make it into heaven either.. lol.

Yes Paul possibly made that statement in his letter. See my previous post... the shameless cut-and-paste. Do you imagine you'll see 'practicing thieving plagiarists' in heaven?