Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Nathan Poe]

yeah like 50 years ago. How OLD is Poe anyway?

More like 30 years ago -- and I was "lucky" enough to have my earliest education in the tradition of the "old school."

[Hamster]

Overcoming any addiction like alcoholism, heterosexual pornography or homosexual pornography, drugs, etc. does not necessarily mean that one will never face that temptation again. IMO, it rather means never "yielding" to that temptation again.

That's true, but the "temptation" is just the regular old sexual nature that can't respond to the opposite sex for whatever reason. It's a bit different then an addiction like alcohol or drugs. You still have the power to eat, drink, have fun, etc. without drugs and alcohol.

If you manage to somehow suppress your sexuality entirely you're still going to feel feelings which aren't necessarily lustful and your dreamlife is going to completely ignore your convictions. You never wake up in the morning to find out you have a hangover from dream-drinking all night ...despite not touching a drink for twenty years. Our sexuality is a huge part of our human nature. We don't naturally need alcohol, drugs, or pornography. A large percent of our anatomy (including large chunks of our brain) exist precisely for the purpose of sexuality. I can't even think of a good analogy as to what it's like to have this working against you. The only other thing I can think of is eating, but at least when you can't eat you die eventually.

If it were really impossible to overcome homosexuality, then there would be zero cases of people who actually have and can give their own testimonies of that fact.

It's possible to overcome any part of human nature. Some saints even pulled their eyes out. "Overcoming homosexuality" these days only means not having gay sex or looking at pornography, The most successful treatment I know of (which may or may not be effective?) is castration. Then you have to take hormones for the rest of your life just to look and feel like the gender you were born into. Millions of people desperately try to cure themselves through prayer and discipline to be normal and barring a miracle or latent bisexuality, they fail. I don't believe it's because they're not committed enough or they're just perverts who can't control themselves.

[SarahB]

I hope I don't drag my own thread off topic with this comment, but here goes.

I think the answer to your question may perhaps be because of the notion of "BORN THAT WAY, AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT." I personally don't believe in "born that way" when it comes to any behavior that God condemns. We all have tendencies, weaknesses of the flesh, and proclivities that tempt us more than others, but to say that our behavior can't be helped, is a lazy cop out, IMO, and a way to justify improper behavior.

I don't believe there is a "gene" that UNCONTROLLABLY IMPOSES things such as what sex one is attracted to. Rather than being a gene that IMPOSES this, I rather believe it is a tendency that some are born with such as the tendency to alcohol, drugs, sugar, certain foods, etc. Certain behaviors, unchecked, can lead to addiction, IMO. And addiction destroys freedom. This is the plight as I see it, for homosexuals, gamblers, smokers, drinkers, pedophiles, sugar addicts, food addicts, and all addictions of the flesh.

Just like there are programs for substance addicts to overcome their addictions, there are also programs for homosexuals that have successfully done the same, but it is by the same means that AA teaches--(faith in God and trust in Him)--that these addictions are also overcome.

So to answer your question, some feel justified in calling you a bigot because homosexuality, they believe, is a "born that way" thing. Or, maybe for some it is a belief system, and so if you oppose it or speak ill of it, you are justifiably (in their mind) labeled a "bigot."

If you're saying that orientation is a choice, doesn't that mean you believe you're bi-sexual?

[One Bad Pig]

Fair enough -- but the difference is in their methods.

AFAICT the difference is largely recent and due to private schools changing their methods more slowly.

[KingsGambit]

Some Christians (not the majority at this point in time, I would say) do argue that homosexuality is a choice to the point where people as adolescents consciously decide that they're going to be attracted to the same sex. That's just not helpful and such tactics don't accurately describe reality and only close off more walls.

[Darth Executor]

That's exactly what plenty of Christians think religious freedom means. Also see: what white people think racial harmony means, what men think sexual equality means. There's always going to be social movements to better society, and right along with them are people in power having a temper tantrum.

What are you babbling about? There is no such thing as "what white people think racial harmony means" as white people can go from "each should stick to their own" klansmen to "white people are inherently oppressive and evil". There is also no such thing as "what men think sexual equality means" as you can go from "rapist and proud" to "consensual sex is rape if the woman changes her mind later". The far left view is also largely advanced by white people (case in point: you). On my end I will derisively dismiss any bigot (which is basically what you are, as the post I am quoting now clearly shows) who thinks someone's skin colour or genital alignment renders them incapable of having an informed opinion on these subjects.

[OtherCheek]

Some Christians (not the majority at this point in time, I would say) do argue that homosexuality is a choice to the point where people as adolescents consciously decide that they're going to be attracted to the same sex. That's just not helpful and such tactics don't accurately describe reality and only close off more walls.

Let's draw a distinction between "tendency toward" and the "acting upon that tendency" or the "behavior."

For example, some people have a tendency toward harmful eating disorders, when they actually give in to those tendencies, that leads to addiction.

Some people may have a tendency for selfish sexual gratification, when they actually give in to those tendencies, this can also lead to addiction.

Once something becomes an addiction, it is way easier to say "Woops, sorry, born that way. Can't do anything about it." Rather than to face up to and admit the harmful behavior for what it is.

[Seasanctuary]

Once something becomes an addiction, it is way easier to say "Woops, sorry, born that way. Can't do anything about it." Rather than to face up to and admit the harmful behavior for what it is.

How is homosexuality harmful?

[Sparko]

How is homosexuality harmful?

I don't want to get too graphic here, but:

The brother of a friend of mine, who is gay, almost died of a ruptured colon because of his sexual practices. Not to mention the ease of infection from the practice of homosexual sex.

[Cow Poke]

I don't want to get too graphic here, but:

The brother of a friend of mine, who is gay, almost died of a ruptured colon because of his sexual practices. Not to mention the ease of infection from the practice of homosexual sex.

It's not so much that there are "design flaws" as there are misuses of systems.

[KingsGambit]

Let's draw a distinction between "tendency toward" and the "acting upon that tendency" or the "behavior."

For example, some people have a tendency toward harmful eating disorders, when they actually give in to those tendencies, that leads to addiction.

Some people may have a tendency for selfish sexual gratification, when they actually give in to those tendencies, this can also lead to addiction.

Once something becomes an addiction, it is way easier to say "Woops, sorry, born that way. Can't do anything about it." Rather than to face up to and admit the harmful behavior for what it is.

Okay, fair enough. I was referring to attraction alone, which I do not believe we really have control over in most cases.

[pancreasman]

From a Christian perspective, would it be fair to say that our sexuality is a gift from God, an integral part of our human nature? It seems odd to me that He would deny the expression of that sexuality within the bounds of a monogamous, loving, committed relationship with the same opportunities for love, transcending self, intimacy and partnership as heterosexuals with the only distinction apparently being which parts go where. I simply cannot see the expression of homosexuality within these bounds as anything like an addiction or damaging to the participants. Sure there are instances where homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can suffer injury or illness through the expression of their sexuality, but that does not prevent us from recognizing the value of intimate positive human relationships any more than car accidents persuade us that cars themselves are evil.

I know I won't agree with most here on this issue but I just needed to say it.

[Cow Poke]

From a Christian perspective, would it be fair to say that our sexuality is a gift from God, an integral part of our human nature? It seems odd to me that He would deny the expression of that sexuality within the bounds of a monogamous, loving, committed relationship with the same opportunities for love, transcending self, intimacy and partnership as heterosexuals with the only distinction apparently being which parts go where. I simply cannot see the expression of homosexuality within these bounds as anything like an addiction or damaging to the participants. Sure there are instances where homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can suffer injury or illness through the expression of their sexuality, but that does not prevent us from recognizing the value of intimate positive human relationships any more than car accidents persuade us that cars themselves are evil.

I know I won't agree with most here on this issue but I just needed to say it.

And I appreciate the manner in which you express it. The fact is, though, that there are consequences for using body parts in ways they were not designed to be used. That, I think, is undeniable. Sure, that can happen in a male-female relationship, but a male-male relationship has rather limited options.

[OtherCheek]

Okay, fair enough. I was referring to attraction alone, which I do not believe we really have control over in most cases.

Perhaps not.

In a religious sense though, depending upon the "attraction", that "attraction" can equate with "temptation".

[ZackMartin]

And I appreciate the manner in which you express it. The fact is, though, that there are consequences for using body parts in ways they were not designed to be used. That, I think, is undeniable. Sure, that can happen in a male-female relationship, but a male-male relationship has rather limited options.

What about a female-female relationship? I doubt a lesbian is any more likely to get a ruptured colon than a straight woman is - probably even less likely.

While gay men do have a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight people, lesbians generally have a lower risk. (Not to say they can't get any, they can, but the risk is lower.) One particular point to note, is that HIV transmission between female partners is basically unknown. It's still theoretically possible, but far less likely than male-male or male-female transmission, and there has never been a confirmed case.

Part of this reduced risk is due to the particular nature of the sexual practices in which they tend to engage. But part of it is due to the fact that gay men tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals, while lesbians are as monogamous as straight people if not more so. You'll find some interesting theories about why this is so, based on the differing average dispositions to promiscuity vs. monogamy in men and women.

This is the thing that annoys me about these "homosexuality causes disease" arguments - they tend to focus on the gay men and ignore the lesbians, and they don't work very well for the later.