But couldn't God just make us love him... why does he go on some wild goose chase to achieve something he could achieve with the snap of his fingers? He is all powerful right? So he could make us do whatever he wants. He could technically make us feel whatever he wants. If he is all powerful than he has the power to control our thoughts and emotions.
You make a good argument. But what about those who are condemned to "Hell" even if what they do isn't harming themselves, e.g. homosexuals? If homosexuality is a choice then it is a result of God giving man free will. So why should those who use their free will for purposes God doesn't agree with be punished? They aren't hurting anybody, so what is the problem?
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
But couldn't God just make us love him... why does he go on some wild goose chase to achieve something he could achieve with the snap of his fingers? He is all powerful right? So he could make us do whatever he wants. He could technically make us feel whatever he wants. If he is all powerful than he has the power to control our thoughts and emotions.
This is where the free-will clause kicks in...
Originally posted by fever red
I can answer that- love without choice is meaningless, valueless...
Does that mean we had the choice of male or female? That's nice in the garden of eden where only female was the option. But, reality has caught up with the bible. I'm not trying to propogate a species.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
True.. but still. That means that God gives our our free will in hopes that we will choose to love and follow him, and if we choose not to we burn in hell? That's still not much of a real choice.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think the biggest issue in the question posed is a matter of validity. People want to know what others think about the subject so that they can form their own opinion on the matter..or validate it to themselves. This is the way I see the question really being formulated in someone's head: "Is homosexuality something these freaks picked up because they're different and should be frowned upon for somehow "seeking" out this heddonistic lifestyle....OR..were the poor diluted souls born that way and simply can't help where they stick their dicks?"...which leads to the much more sympathetic disgust known as begrudged pity.In either case, I wonder why it matters? If I am gay because I am genetically hard-wired to be gay, or whether I'm gay because I chose to be, isn't relevant. I simply am. I'm gay, and there's nothing that the good lord Jesus, the lord of darkness Satan, George W Bush, Firey Eyes, Adolf Hitler, Ghandi or John Kerry can do about it. It is a fact. And unless we are going back to the prehistoric days of simply killing those who are different BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT then it's a fact that the world is simply going to have to accept.
I've heard all these arguments before, and they always seem to fall short of ever accomplishing something...anything. When the argument is over and everyone has lost intrest in the thread, no one will have changed their mind, much less reached an informed conclusion where either side has been considered.
I'm not one of those gay guys that stands on the steps of capitol hill and waves a rainbow flag. I'm not a big supported of gay rights...as they are contradictory to the very goal they are meant to acheive. Special rights for gay people will only set them apart from the rest of society even further. It's like taking two shows and comparing them...like Six Feet Under and Queer as Folk. Six Feet Under has a lot of gay themes which are part of the larger story. Queer As Folk is simply a soap opera about gay people that fulfills every stereotype in the book. A straight guy can watch Six Feet Under and enjoy it, and not even notice the difference between the gay and straight characters...but let a straight guy watch Queer As Folk and they talk about how disgusting it is. I don't want special rights for gay people, I want human rights for everyone.
page 14 of this thread
People will hate me for this- I believe many "transgendered" individuals are refusing to cope with their homosexuality, and could stand to revise/expand their definitions of "male," "female," "masculine," and "feminine."
Anyway- why use surgery to make your body conform to a social definition? Why not be a man comfortable in your birth body, however it's structured, if you identify as a man? Same with being a woman.
You make a good argument. But what about those who are condemned to "Hell" even if what they do isn't harming themselves, e.g. homosexuals?
Homosexuals are not condemned to hell, you know, just as murderers are not.
What I don't understand is why God would put biological, innate obstacles in some people's paths, such as homosexuality...
The same reason that we suffer from physical abnormalities--bad genetics. Perhaps we are to suffer as Paul did?
Furthermore, there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.
Incorrect, I have already stated that there IS evidence, just that the success rates of "conversions" are low.
Yes, the Bible condemns divorce unless the wife is an adulteress...although I think exceptions can be made for abusive spouses. The women silent in church bit has more to do with the culture at the time where women didn't have the rights they do today.Leviticus 5: 5-6 "'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin."
Leviticus 18: 2-5 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD."
Leviticus 18: 22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 18: "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things..."
Romans 1:24-28 "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I believe the Bible speaks for itself on the issue of homosexuality.
Should have rebelled. Shouldn't have thrown Sarah the Israelite girl in the privy for collapsing midway through the harvest, after working three double shifts because the Pharaoh had ordered all boys to be killed. If you join a cause, and reap the benefits, you are to blame for the affects.
But what do they have to do to avoid it? Stop being gay and repent for their sins? (I don't know if repent is the right word.)
Aaah, the word 'repent'. This I hate for it brings out the witch-burning Christian stereotype 🙂. Anyhow, the thing to do would be to stop engaging in homosexual relationships (assuming the individual is) and...*shudders*...yes, 'repent'. Ugh. Has anyone read The Hunchback of Notre Dame? When I think repent, I think of the corrupt priest 🙂.
Now, there were some Germans who hid/helped Jews.
Every first-born child. Every house-hold.
Also, how can you make the decision to not take literally the condemnation of women speaking in church, but still promote the idea that the rest of the bible must be taken literally? I'm not bringing that up to imply that you're hypocritical- I just wanted to point out that it's a discrepancy, which you probably haven't yet noticed/identified in your own thinking.
Don't smite me!