Dobson vs. SpongeBob

[Bamalaw92]

yes i appreciate the info. it helps me better understand the stance insofar as it's justifiable in terms of the bible.

It helps to understand Christians if you know their beliefs. Glad I could help.

sure and actually alo tof monks and bishops were effectively homosexual, even writing about it, up through the middle ages.

They also wrote about the need to supress those urges given their vow of celibacy.

moment of weakness wasn't the best choice of words perhaps. my point is that being a prostitute means you did the job for a time, being an adulterer means you committed adultery one or more times,

So far we can agree

being a homosexual is something you are for life.

This is where you and I do not agree. With God, all things are possible. Even if homosexuality is genetic, homosexual acts and behaviour are not.

it's more than an urge, unless the way you love your wife is an urge. i think the peopel we love most intimately are very essential to who we are.

This would be a good argument if we were talking about something other than the sexual act itself. We are not. I love my mother, brothers, sisters, cousins and my children, but I do not engage in sex with them. There is nothing wrong with men loving men or women loving women. It is when they give into the sins of the flesh that God is saddened.

doesn't paul also say something about women not openning their mouths in church? if so, that would be a prime example of what i mean by religion adapting to social values.

Yes he does, but he does not equate this with sinning. It is simply an instruction on orderly church worship. Here is the the entire quote in context:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two–or at the most three–should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

You analogy is therefore flawed, because it is not an example of the church changing and declaring something that was once considered sinful to be all of a sudden OK. Also note that many Christians (including Catholics) still adhere to this Church Order and do not allow women to preach.

 

[TexasTide]

i wouldn't say it's meaningless. many churches now allow women ministers and the bible still means alot to them. they've just revised the bible, changed how they look at it. the same thing protestants did in breaking from catholicism.

That is not what the Protestants did, it was the exact opposite. It was the Catholics that had gotten away from the Bible. The Pope had become a powerful politician not the leader of the Church. Catholics also believe you must confess your sins to a Priest in order to be absolved and they had begun to require that you donate money before you could receive forgiveness. It became a powerful political entity where you bought your way into Heaven.
This why it was called the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church would not reform because this meant a loss of power and revenue, so Martin Luther began the Protestant church which believed in a strict interpretation of the Bible.

 

[blackumbrella]

You analogy is therefore flawed, because it is not an example of the church changing and declaring something that was once considered sinful to be all of a sudden OK. Also note that many Christians (including Catholics) still adhere to this Church Order and do not allow women to preach.

maybe vatican 2 is a better example

 

[blackumbrella]

That is not what the Protestants did, it was the exact opposite. It was the Catholics that had gotten away from the Bible. The Pope had become a powerful politician not the leader of the Church. Catholics also believe you must confess your sins to a Priest in order to be absolved and they had begun to require that you donate money before you could receive forgiveness. It became a powerful political entity where you bought your way into Heaven.
This why it was called the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church would not reform because this meant a loss of power and revenue, so Martin Luther began the Protestant church which believed in a strict interpretation of the Bible.

maybe vatican 2 is a better example

 

[Bamalaw92]

maybe vatican 2 is a better example

Please explain how you think Vatican 2 has declared things viewed as sin as no longer sinful.

This is what Vatican 2 says about homosexuality: Accept the orientation, not the actions - "As the Catholic bishops state it: "(W)e believe that it is only within a heterosexual marital relationship that genital sexual activity is morally acceptable. Only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life. Therefore, homosexual genital activity is considered immoral" Sound familiar?
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/VAT/aq0105.asp

 

[Tide and True]

i suspect our cultural tolerance will continue to grow and religion will adapt, leaving today's homophobes historical footnotes equivalent to 20th century racists or 19th century sexists, not so much ignorant as products of their time.

In fact, BU, most polls (including data from the 2004 election) back up your suspicion. The younger the generation, the less adversely it views gays. In twenty years, the political landscape -- at least on this issue -- will change dramatically. Which is probably why social conservatives are currently fighting it with such vehemence.

 

[Bamalaw92]

In fact, BU, most polls (including data from the 2004 election) back up your suspicion. The younger the generation, the less adversely it views gays. In a twenty years, the political landscape -- at least on this issue -- will change dramatically. Which is probably why social conservatives are currently fighting so hard.

You are correct with regard to the political landscape. I disagree that true religion will change to reflect this. If it does, the ones that do will fufill God's prophecy of rampant wickedness in the end times. Man can accept sin all he wants, but God never will - regardless of the "political landscape".

 

[blackumbrella]

Please explain how you think Vatican 2 has declared things viewed as sin as no longer sinful.

This is what Vatican 2 says about homosexuality: Accept the orientation, not the actions - "As the Catholic bishops state it: "(W)e believe that it is only within a heterosexual marital relationship that genital sexual activity is morally acceptable. Only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life. Therefore, homosexual genital activity is considered immoral" Sound familiar?
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/VAT/aq0105.asp

sorry for the blurb. had to attend to something right quick. vatican 2 serves as a good example of religion, in the most institutional sense, adapting to changing cultural values. certainly our cultural tolerance for homosexualitu hasn't yet hit the critical threshold where religious institutions feel obligated to emend their doctrines on the matter, and i suspect catholics and southern baptists will be among the last to do so. thanks to TnT we have an empirical indicator of just how much our values have/are changing. and anyone who distrusts this sort of evidence has only to watch the tube, read the paper, listen to the radio, look at the people in the streets, to see the difference. in fact i can't imagine that your attitude, which i take to be explicitly against the behavior (i enjoy your british spelling btw) but nevertheless civil toward the individual, isn't itself a softened version of the stance most likely taken by your faith's previous generations, softened bc you live in a more tolerant culture. i respect your opinion that god's standards don't change, but i tend to think that god's standards are reflected in the standards of those who believe in god. if it is in fact the case that homosexuality in our mass estimation is swinging toward the tolerability end, religion won't disappear, it'll change. and the idea the members of that religion have of god will reflect their values.

 

[Tide and True]

I disagree that true religion will change to reflect this. If it does, the ones that do will fufill God's prophecy of rampant wickedness in the end times. Man can accept sin all he wants, but God never will - regardless of the "political landscape".

You may be right. This may be an issue upon which Christians won't budge. Admittedly, you're in a better position to judge that than I. It's worth noting, however, that Christians have consistently moderated their views. In the 13th and 14th centuries, for instance, heretics were routinely tortured and killed. No longer. Yesterday's heresy is today's 5th grade science lesson. And thank God for that, right?

 

[Bamalaw92]

You may be right. This may be an issue upon which Christians won't budge. Admittedly, you're in a better position to judge that than I. It's worth noting, however, that Christians have consistently moderated their views. In the 13th and 14th centuries, for instance, heretics were routinely tortured and killed. No longer. Yesterday's heresy is today's 5th grade science lesson. And thank God for that, right?

Actually, in the Catholic church, they were tortured up until the early 20th century. That fact aside, I disagree that the Christian church has moderated it view on sin as much as it's view on how it should be dealt with by the church. Again, there is a difference between heresy and sin, but that is a whole other thread.

 

[Bamalaw92]

sorry for the blurb. had to attend to something right quick. vatican 2 serves as a good example of religion, in the most institutional sense, adapting to changing cultural values.

They have yet, however, stated that something declared sinful by the Bible is no longer sinful. You have yet to cite an example of this. This is where your entire premise fails.

certainly our cultural tolerance for homosexualitu hasn't yet hit the critical threshold where religious institutions feel obligated to emend their doctrines on the matter, and i suspect catholics and southern baptists will be among the last to do so.

list me one Christian church that holds hon=mosexuality not to be a sin.

thanks to TnT we have an empirical indicator of just how much our values have/are changing. and anyone who distrusts this sort of evidence has only to watch the tube, read the paper, listen to the radio, look at the people in the streets, to see the difference.

I predict there will be a huge backlash against this as well.

in fact i can't imagine that your attitude, which i take to be explicitly against the behavior (i enjoy your british spelling btw) {Hey at least I try to spell } but nevertheless civil toward the individual, isn't itself a softened version of the stance most likely taken by your faith's previous generations, softened bc you live in a more tolerant culture.

This demonstrates your ignorance of early Christianity and the culture in which it arose. this was the original attitude in a culture where homosexuality was widely accepted. It is no more than returning to the beginnings of my religion.

i respect your opinion that god's standards don't change, but i tend to think that god's standards are reflected in the standards of those who believe in god.

That is a belief that anyone who believes in God does not share in the slightest. Man does not form God. God forms man. Did your parents opinions change to reflect your "better judgment" when you were a teenager?
[/quote] if it is in fact the case that homosexuality in our mass estimation is swinging toward the tolerability end, religion won't disappear, it'll change. and the idea the members of that religion have of god will reflect their values.[/QUOTE]If that happens, then it is a false religion. Christianity in it's true form has not and will not change its basic tenants.