Total Motorcycle Community Forums

scanevalexec wrote:But I can't say a thing about those with religious beliefs that say it is wrong. If you think God says it is wrong, I guess it is wrong. Makes me sad for homosexual Christians. They love God and glorify Christ and yet they are damned still.

They may love God, but their disobedience does not "glorify Christ". The term "homosexual Christian" is an oxymoron. As a follower of Christ (the definition of a Christian), we are to repent and turn away from sin. So how then can one partake in a sinful relationship complete with sinful label and be a follower of Christ???

scanevalexec wrote: Christians think this is a choice, but I don't know anyone who would choose to be such an unpopular thing.

It is a choice. The people who argue that homosexuals are "born that way" attempt to normalize the behavior to the point that opposition to it appears to be discrimination and hate. After all, you can't be upset with someone who was born mentally challenged, so how can you be upset with someone born gay, right?

scanevalexec wrote: As far as I can tell supressing who you are is only going to make things worse. Look at preists - they are not allowed to touch women or have a sexuality - so we get a whole bunch of sexual dysfunction.

I'm not a Catholic. I happen to despise the Catholic church. I don't agree that priests should remain single. There are all sorts of issues within the Catholic church that are propogated by the Catholic church. That's the problem with referring to Christianity in an all-encompassing umbrella sort of way.

scanevalexec wrote: But I know, you didn't write the rules, God did and so you are grateful.

A rather condescending comment if I've ever read one. Surprising from you I might add. But I think the all-knowing, all mighty God and Creator of the Heavens and the universe can pretty much make the rules as He sees fit. After all, only He is incapable of sin. You act as though there aren't things that are considered sin that I myself would like to partake in. We are all tempted. But your argument amounts to nothing more than justification of sin. And it'll be interesting to see how your argument holds up on judgement day.

That also raises a couple of other fun points including the following:

Heterosexuality is considered to be relations between a man and a woman. Correct. But what is the definition of a man? Or what makes a man a man? Is it the presence of a Y chromosome or the actual physical equipment that makes a man a man? Does that mean a woman can only be XX, and a man is only XY?

This leaves out a fair number of possibilities. Now in a standard healthy male you have an X and a Y chromosome, in a female you have 2 X's. This creates the differences we see. However there are other possibilities.

The default form for any human child is female. Unless they have the Y chromosome and the resulting hormone releases during gestation they will be a female.

I've got a friend who has only one X chromosome. She defaulted to female. Typically children like that are aborted in the womb, but she was carried to term and has lived for 20 years now. Technically since she has only 1 X chromosome she cannot be considered female.

There is also the possiblity of an XXY chromosome distribution. This works out to a female with a males strengths, increased size and muscle mass by way of example. So is that a guy or a girl? How does that apply to sexual choices? They look like a woman...

Then there's other even more interesting stuff that can happen. In order for a guy to become a guy he must be exposed to high levels of testosterone which cause the formation of the testes and phallus plus other differences. There is a recessive gene that causes the cells to be unable to absorb testosterone. This means that the man will not be exposed to testosterone during development, and default to female. He will look act and think he is female but but lack a uterus and ovaries.
Sometimes the testosterone is simply not released due to genetic problems. So this is a guy that is a girl outside physically, and believes he is a female. Does that make him a homosexual? Genetically yes.

Then there's the question of chimerism, in which a person can have 2 distinct sets of genetic code caused by the merging of two fraternal twin cells. They can simultaneous demonstrate both male and female chracteristics. The most prominent had 1/2 uterus, 1 ovary, 1 test 1/2 a phallus, and 1/2 a spot. As well as line down the middle of his chest that was dark brown on one side and light brown on the other. Plastic surgeons later modified him to appear fully male, but he is genetically both.

So the question is if, god cannot even make sure that we're completely male or female physically, how can he be expected to do so for us mentally. For all we know some homosexuals may actually believe they are the opposite sex.

Of course no one wants to consider that their god might be wrong.

ZooTech wrote:
And you don't even have to believe in God to know homosexuality is wrong. Anyone believing in evolution can clearly see the male posterior is not equipped to accomodate the act, which is why purchases must be made at specialty stores to help things along. Or do you suppose a million years from now evolution will catch up?

Zoo. What is morally right or wrong cannot simply be derived fom a piece of anatomy. No statement of value including moral value can be deduced solely from a statement of fact. The logic involved just doesn't work that way. Just because something is anatomically inconvenient doesn't mean it is morally wrong. If that were the case, our imperfectly adapted vertical posture would make it morally wrong to lift heavy weights.

What you can do is use a statement of fact to support a moral idea. But that means you have to look at all the facts to argue a case honestly.

All available evidence appears to show that homosexuality is prevalent in all societies and at all times, and at a steady rate of 10% of the population. Moreover, people do not choose homosexuality, it is something they discover about themselves. This strongly suggests that the human organism is predisposed to the development of homosexual desire in a minority of its population.

If you want to show (by argument rather than by decree) that homosexual desire is morally wrong or that homosexual desire is acceptable but homosexual practice is not, you have your work cut out for you. In the case of homosexual practice, you have to show that acting on a biologically induced behaviour is morally wrong. Now that is not impossible. Many evolutionary behaviours, like the destructive use of agression, are morally wrong, because they harm others. But by appling any of the ordinary moral standards: does it harm others or the self, does it reduce the sum total of human hapiness etc, I can't see that you can demonstrate that homesexuality is wrong.

So we are back to decree.

As you know I don't believe in God or the Bible, except as an ancient means of enforcing social behaviour by a controlling elite, so that closes that one for me also.

A rather condescending comment if I've ever read one.

I don't know how you could talk about condecending. But it is in your charter, since yours is the only right way to think. You don't think you are that way, but it is the way it looks to those observing your post. I also know that you are not nearly so forthright about these things in person. Writing changes folks, so it seems.

My arguement is not an arguement. Calling it an arguement makes it sound as though I was defending a point. I was only pointing out what didn't make sense. I certainly do not know for sure what is right, but I do know you are wrong about everyone else naturally know homosexuals are wrong since the physical side is not a match. I think this is a false. Everyone who thinks homosexuals are only having sex all the time are way confused. That would be like thinking hetrosexuals are only it it for the sex. For some that may be the case, but that is about individuals, not partner choice.

I'm simply stating what I view as the facts in the case. I can't prove a gay man or women is by choice or birth - or enviroment. I'm just saying if it is a choice, and they are a Christian and love Christ, they are really stupid. Not just a little stupid, but maybe even mentally challenged - which I guess is not a choice. Maybe they have a chance under your "mentally challenged" loop hole.

I don't view judgement as you do, so I do not fear my judgement. I do pray for YOU though and hope you can be happy in your choices. These are your choices to make up your theory of what God wants and your choice to interpret the bible in the manner you do. I'm sure you say "I do what is in the bible so I can't go wrong" but I say you are not doing the same thing everybody does when they say they are following the bible. Your point of view is convienient to you and easy for you to regard as black and white again. Like I said before - if you follow your "God's" rules you'll still be good by the God I believe in too- so there.

You and I are on the same team by my thoughts. I on the other hand am someone for you to pity as I will be damned to hell. I was going to mention, I'm not gay anyway, but you aren't just claiming me damned for the "gay thing" but really you have a whole list of things which will damn me.

ZooTech wrote:
It is a choice. The people who argue that homosexuals are "born that way" attempt to normalize the behavior to the point that opposition to it appears to be discrimination and hate. After all, you can't be upset with someone who was born mentally challenged, so how can you be upset with someone born gay, right?
.

This is nonsense. Many people are revolted by certain forms of congenital disability, Thalidomide deformity for example, or Downs Syndrome. I used to work at a day centre for people with Downs and similar conditions and the clients told me that people would often shun them for their appearance. It was their daily experience.

These are wild arguments, and simple assertions, Zoo.

Did you choose your heterosexuality? Was being heterosexual a moral choice for you? Did you weigh up the choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality and decide, on balance, to be straight? Did you read what you took to be God's decree and think you'd better not be gay? If it is a choice to be gay then it is a choice all of us have to make. Hands up the number of people who had to make this difficult decision.

Maybe you did, but I would doubt it!

ronboskz650sr wrote:Thanks, Richard. I know we differ on this. I do hope I haven't lashed out in a way that hurts anybody. That isn't my intent. Clearly Christians who hurt each other, and their non-Christian friends don't present a witness in the example if Christ, and I know we all blow it sometimes. I even know some professing Christians who won't give me the time of day just because of my current job. It was really cool when The guy in the Missouri house of reperesentatives came out to the road to help yesterday. My son saw this, and was amazed at the guy treating us just like we treat him...with utmost respect. I'll try to do better here with that, because I can see from re-reading my own posts, how it's possible to infer a tone I didn't mean to imply. The book of James warns us of the tongue and it's power to hurt. Really the keyboard has become an extension of the tongue nowadays. This forum is actually very, VERY civil compared to some of the other motorcycle forums. It's easy to type something and have it seem different than what you meant. I apologize for any words that hurt. I can actually say all these words face-to face- and show love while saying them. Facial expression and body language really mean alot .

Hi Ron



Yep, the lack of body language is a real problem on the net.

I've just trawled back through this thread and found your post. Can hardly believe the energy this is all generating.

Best wishes

Richard

Sevulturus wrote:Actually quite a few different animals -- most commonly primates -- will exhibit homosexual activities. Humans are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it happening though. .

Well, I grew up in a house surrounded by dairy pasture. You should see cows going at it with one another when there is no bull around, and sometimes when there is.

Sevulturus wrote:Of course it is a lot easier to condemn then try to understand. .

Well said, Sev. I think you have gone to the very heart of this debate, for many of us. There is something very cold about all this moralising from 'the divine rule book'

scanevalexec wrote: I don't know how you could talk about condecending. But it is in your charter, since yours is the only right way to think. You don't think you are that way, but it is the way it looks to those observing your post.
My arguement is not an arguement. Calling it an arguement makes it sound as though I was defending a point. I was only pointing out what didn't make sense. I certainly do not know for sure what is right, but I do know you are wrong about everyone else naturally know homosexuals are wrong since the physical side is not a match. I think this is a false. Everyone who thinks homosexuals are only having sex all the time are way confused. That would be like thinking hetrosexuals are only it it for the sex. For some that may be the case, but that is about individuals, not partner choice.

I'm simply stating what I view as the facts in the case. I can't prove a gay man or women is by choice or birth - or enviroment. I'm just saying if it is a choice, and they are a Christian and love Christ, they are really stupid. Not just a little stupid, but maybe even mentally challenged - which I guess is not a choice. Maybe they have a chance under your "mentally challenged" loop hole.

I don't view judgement as you do, so I do not fear my judgement. I do pray for YOU though and hope you can be happy in your choices. These are your choices to make up your theory of what God wants and your choice to interpret the bible in the manner you do. I'm sure you say "I do what is in the bible so I can't go wrong" but I say you are not doing the same thing everybody does when they say they are following the bible. Your point of view is convienient to you and easy for you to regard as black and white again. Like I said before - if you follow your "God's" rules you'll still be good by the God I believe in too- so there.

You and I are on the same team by my thoughts. I on the other hand am someone for you to pity as I will be damned to hell. I was going to mention, I'm not gay anyway, but you aren't just claiming me damned for the "gay thing" but really you have a whole list of things which will damn me.

It is not for me to judge, much less damn you, Scan. Pointing out behavior that violates God's word is not the same as judging someone. If I say homosexuals are sinners, I am not judging homosexuals. God will judge them some day, as He will me.

As for my viewpoint, while I lay claim to no denomination, I like to refer to myself as a Christian Literalist. That means I take the Bible literally, and not as some book of stories written by fallible men that may or may not apply to today's world. Too many here on this forum are leading wishy-washy, lukewarm lives. It's as though you want to give just enough props to God to cover your butt, while you continue living and believing as you wish. That makes me unpopular, something I have always been, but it does not make me wrong. I will not sidestep my beliefs so as not to offend anyone, and I refuse to be politically correct. Political correctness is nothing more than shielding someone from the painful truth. But people shouldn't be shielded from the truth, they should be made to face it and deal with it. I'm sorry if it appears as though I'm coming down on you and/or Kris for choices you've made, but I assure you I am not. I will not cast the first stone...not with my past.

scanevalexec wrote: I also know that you are not nearly so forthright about these things in person. Writing changes folks, so it seems.

Before the first ride Kris and I did I knew we had very different religious and political views. But agreeing with my beliefs, dressing how I dress, talking how I talk, and voting how I vote are not prerequisites to being my friend, Dave. I don't blow these trumpets so loudly in public because you and I and Kris get together to ride motorcycles, enjoy the scenery, and talk about lighter subjects. In contrast, here we are locked-in to a relatively deep theological and political debate, and I do tend to feel more comfortable behind a keyboard than a podium.

I think you need to get over the assumption that by representing the Bible as the living word of God, I am somehow condemning the rest of you, judging you, and feeling as though I am somehow better than you. If the word of God makes you feel ashamed of something you have done, then it sounds to me like you need atonement. You cannot hide from God behind thick shades of grey. I am just as much a sinner as anyone here. I need constant guidance to keep me on the straight and narrow. And this is not a competition to see who can die with the most right answers. Ultimately we're talking about the fate of your everlasting soul. I care enough about the people in this forum to stand my ground and not succumb to the popular opinions just to fit in and be liked. I have no problem being the despised outcast if it means getting through to at least one person in some way.

ZooTech wrote:[

So I invite you to look into the message of Christ at your own pace, and on your own terms. Keep an open heart and ask Him to reveal the truth to you. Quell your pride for a moment and just ask Him to tell you what it is He wants to tell you. It won't be easy, but I pray you'll at least meet Him half way.

Zoo, thanks for your invitation, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions about me here.

Throughout my life I've met Hindus and Muslims, Sufis and Sikhs and Jews, Pagans and of course Christans of many different persuasions. Many of them were as dedicated to their faith as you are, and many proclaimed their own experience of the divine. What's the difference between them? The spiritual experience of each was coloured by the preconceived notions that they carried in their minds and which were usually planted there by the culture they grew up in. Christinas had Christian revelations, Muslims had Islamic ones and so on.

I'm an athiest because it seems blindingly obvious to me that all these revelations are books written by men which cover genuine spiritual experience like a veil. Because I am an atheist it does not mean I do not believe in spirtual experience. I think that is programmed into all of us. I just interpret it differently to you. I have explored many ways of opening up the heart, Zoo. Christianity did not do it for me.

I don't normally talk about my own practice or experionce, but just once, for the record. My own spritual practices are drawn from a combination of Buddhism and Taoism. I found my way a long time ago. I don't need another.

ZooTech wrote:I happen to despise the Catholic church.

Now there's a healthy Christian attitude.