Nice and interesting review of Christian attitudes to homosexuality.

But what has this to do with "gay marriage" (the article's title)?

Gay - Not all homosexuals and homosexual-families are gay about it; nor all gays are homosexual: being "gay" is not a sexual, but a political orientation: surely no one proposes having Labor-marriages, Liberal-marriages and Green-marriages...

Marriage - the current public discussion and survey is about the act of receiving a piece of paper from government, not about the marriages of homosexuals, which already occur and are already blessed by some of the churches. Not all married people have such a piece of paper and not everyone who has such a paper is truly married.

Cool thought provoking piece. 21st century Christianity needs a King to unite the denominations while allowing space for their unique viewpoints as well.

A very scholarly tome Peter. If the church ever had any authority to interpret scriptures not appearing as written text until 30-50 years after the event? That remote possibility disappeared with the advent of armed Popes at the head of invading armies, putting all disbelievers to the sword, during the infamous dark ages!

Yes but focus not on what we were, just what we've become, say some evangelical Christians.

And exactly. when the church today is little better than a wealth hoarding, political movement guided by, manifestly man made doctrine, inflexible, infallible dogma and pagan ritual!

And all the hallmarks of a fanatical cult, for whom the facts or scientific evidence, will never ever allow any admission whatsoever, that they could be wrong?

That said, I will withhold a final position until I see a Pope walking on water and healing the sick with a laying on of hands. Plus, feeding the poor from one or two, hand carried baskets of food! As irrefutable evidence of a genuine Holy spirit inspired/activated he or she, who indubitably speaks and acts for the Maker!

As opposed to yet another mendacious, disingenuous, power obsessed, or manifestly mistaken claimant?

It is one thing to allegedly follow the claimed teaching of a "redeemer?" And quite another to speak, with (self appointed) absolute authority for him!

But particularly, when emerging scientific evidence refutes most or all of it!
Alan B.

one does not have to be a believer to see quite clearly that the promotion and modelling of multiple sex partners, homosexuality and other perversions lead to disease, mental health issues, suicide,fatherless kids, motherless kids, violence, confusion and break down in society. Biology is thrown out the window in this debate as well as any commonsense. To further enhance totally failed feminist/ secular dogmas and the putried living that flows from it will simply lead to more depression, suicide and lawlessness. How anyone with half a brain can't see this shows how dumbed down much or even most of the population has become.

Dozens of places around the world where marriage equality and the literal time worn evidence just proves, as always Runner, how wrong you and other (speaks for God) buried head, "cult members" are!

It must be extremely disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air, but even more disconcerting, when you understand what they're saying!? Even so, it must give you considerable comfort to know you and all the other flat earthers, (true believers) are never ever wrong!
Alan B.

Just repulsive and unnatural is enough for me, without looking for religious reasons.

Dear Ttbn,

«Just repulsive and unnatural is enough for me, without looking for religious reasons.»

Absolutely so, I couldn't agree more!

I assume that you wrote in support of Alan who said "It must be extremely disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air", referring to this fashion of carrying around, wearing and speaking to those stupid, cancerous, radiation-emitting electronic devices - it's extremely repulsive and unnatural.

"Just repulsive and unnatural is enough for me, without looking for religious reasons."
I too find it unnatural and repulsive, but I have no wish to force my beliefs on other people who may not find this repulsive or unnatural.

Peter Sellick gave a good description of the church denominations with regards to homosexuality. It's true that homosexuality is a hard issue within Christian communities. With one church or pastor willing to marry homosexuals and another stiffly against it. But for me the best possible argument for it within the church is the understanding that we all sin. This specific understanding does not endorse homosexuality (though it is often paired with perspectives that do endorse it), and it speaks on the texts of the bible that in no way endorses sexual relations with the same sex.

I find it very troubling to to see Christians rewrite their own faith, as if they know God will more then God knows His own will. So to ignore what has been said in the bible and then say as if it is God's progressive revelation is quite troubling account that I see as a plague in Christian communities.

That said, who does not know someone who is homosexual, and who does not know the strong pull for satisfying our romantic lusts? There is a deeper issue here that could also be addressed. As a population most of mankind has become very sex driven. Possibly just part of our make up or possibly because our societies puts for sexual endorsing as per the entertainment, the satifacation in it, and the fact that it sells so so much in advertising.

As a Christian I can almost tell a homosexual that being attracted to the same sex is ok; as long as they just avoid having sex,or sexual acts, then they can have deep commited friendships. But then I would also know my own hypocrisy in this, because as for me this isn't an option I've found easy. None the less, to be a Christian should be about following Jesus. It's not our standard that counts, but God's standards.

Not_Now.Soon

' As a Christian I can almost tell a homosexual that being attracted to the same sex is ok; as long as they just avoid having sex,or sexual acts, then they can have deep commited friendships'

would you argue that a peadophile being attracted to kids is ok as long as they avoid sex.

no doubt many do have strong same sex attractions the same way many/most have strong fornication or adultrous urges. To acknowldege one's struggle in a totally sexualised secular society is one thing but to promote and ignore the obvious damages is another. People practising homosexuality are broken confused sinners like the rest of us. The answer isn't to promote or endorse the sin which has led to more suicide, more child abuse, more depression, more sickness etc

Ooo, ooo, can I answer this?

runner asks: “would you argue that a [paedophile] being attracted to kids is ok as long as they avoid sex[?]”

Yes, I would.

--

Not_Now.Soon and runner,

You two have raised a good point about Christianity: it sets up unrealistic, irrational, and immoral criteria by which to live, and then it convinces the believer that they need saving, and that Christianity is the only means whereby the believer can receive this salvation.

The immorality in the way that Christianity goes about this is in the fact that it then creates a loophole so that one never has to be responsible for their actions. A loophole which has nothing to do with how good one is, only how much one is willing to be a sycophant to an idea.

//None the less, to be a Christian should be about following Jesus.//

Well maybe give that a try then? Jesus is pretty much mute on the topic of homosexuality. He never comes out in favour - but he never condemns it either...

It's St. Paul that doesn't like the gays. And he was just some dude, not the son of God or anything. Any time somebody quotes New Testament scripture condemning homosexuality, it is always Paul and not Jesus that they are quoting.

runner asks: “would you argue that a [paedophile] being attracted to kids is ok as long as they avoid sex[?]”

No.

His patronage of child molesting web sites, publishers and his discussions with others like him are responsible for the existence of child molesting, prostitution and torture of children to provide for his tastes. Clientele drive the commission of the crimes.

It is impossible that a paedophlie will not be acting on his impulses.

Ensure they get early referral, in teens where behaviour might be noticed for instance, to someone competent for their own and others' sake.

'His patronage of child molesting web sites, publishers and his discussions with others like him are responsible for the existence of child molesting, prostitution and torture of children to provide for his tastes'

I am not sure that explains 30% or so of kids abused in Roeburne and other aboriginal communities although no doubt porn plays a role. The regressives argued for years that was someone views does not affect their behaviour. How wrong they were about this and so many other dogmas.

leoj,

Firstly, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that it is impossible for paedophiles to not act on their impulses. What makes paedophilia so different to teleiophilia, in that way?

Secondly, and this might be nit-picking, even if it is impossible for paedophiles to control their impulses to the extent where they will inevitably at least access child porn, that still doesn’t make being a paedophile inherently wrong. It’s what results from it that is wrong.

Finally, all I think runner had in mind was the mere state of being a paedophile. He spoke specifically of “being attracted to kids”. Not what that may result in. runner doesn’t think that deeply about anything. What you see is what you get.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«But for me the best possible argument for it within the church is the understanding that we all sin»

Thank you for this wonderful observation.

---

Dear Leoj,

«It is impossible that a paedophlie will not be acting on his impulses.

It is also impossible to lift the earth while you stand on it, but as Archimedes stated:

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world"

The physical human body cannot transcend itself and its animal nature, so on its own it will always act according to the dictates of its stupid genes. However, YOU can lift it up by using the spirit as lever and God as fulcrum.

---

Dear Runner,

«would you argue that a peadophile being attracted to kids is ok as long as they avoid sex.»

No, because this would only be one of several conditions that are needed in order to ensure that no one gets hurt - see for example Leoj's condition regarding websites, etc.

But if all these conditions are met, so that no one is hurt, then there is nothing wrong about the attraction itself. Any attraction can be sublimated and turned towards God, then this same attraction is fulfilled and shines in all glory.

AJ Philips,

I didn't intend to interrupt the flow of the discussion.

In essence this is my contribution and I sincerely hope that all will be keeping it in mind,

"Ensure they get early referral, in teens where behaviour might be noticed for instance, to someone competent for their own and others' sake".

Has anyone been astounded by the sheer number of reported sexual abuse cases 7,000+ by protected paedophile priests, sick bastards, some of who hid in plain sight among us, as the most vociferous and vicious homophobes pounding pulpits and labeling God created natural attraction/perfectly normal lust/naked as the day you were born/normal masterbation, as sinful.

In the days when gentle kind J.C. walked the earth, most men were married in their teens and parents in their twenties or sooner.

The fact he was allegedly still unmarried at 33 and preferred the company of men, would have had the runners of his era, labeling him as a homosexual, with maybe Judas as his secret lover?

And true to homophobic form, crucifying him for daring to be born different.

Science has had another look at this and discovered the gay gene, which is not one gene but several and down near the bottom of the double helix DNA spiral!

But hell, why let the science and emerging evidence stand in the way of a fatuous foible and just using some misbegotten stone age belief system as the only excuse for all manner of never ever justified judgement, discrimination, abuse and self indulgent confirmation bias.

And so far from the universal golden rule, of do unto others, to all but condemn the parsimonious finger pointers to ultimately pay for all the harm they do, have done or cause!

Having opened death door and taken a truly terrified butchers. I would want to be in your shoes when you stand in ultimate final judgement, runner and co.
Alan B.

The 'gay' gene. Dont be so gullible Alan. Next you will be saying their is a paedophile gene.

More pompous liberal nonsense from the poison pen of the devil! What drivel that flows to its conclusion in the second last paragraph. Why not simply say you are pro-gay and leave Christianity out of it. Coward!

It won't make them feel better Peter. Unfortunately. If it would then maybe but I don't believe it will.
My expectation is it'll only add fear of resentment to that underlying aguish they all feel about disapproval from others.
Their anguish is understandable and it's hard not to be sympathetic but facts are facts.
Hetrosexual attraction is a natural biological process of our species. It's not the anomaly. Unease with homosexuality is instinctive and natural.
All the indoctrination in the world won't change that regardless of whether it's from twisting scriptures or the marxist programmers in our schools. Neither will changing a law so homosexual couples can call their relationship a marriage on paper.
Marriage is the name we use for the unique and natural union of a man and a woman.
Expanding the meaning of the term is just an exercise in pretending and that we're even entertaining the idea quite frankly demonstrates just how dumbed down and stupid we've become as a society as runner correctly said above.

Runner. You've compaired peadophiles to homosexuals. So with that in mind,I'll answer your question. Then try to explain my origional thoughts.

If a pedophile resist the urge to harm children, like an alcoholic resists the urge to drink. Then that pedophile is doing their duty to fight the evil within them. If like an alcoholic avoiding places that have alcohol, if a pedophile avoids places that children are around as well as porn that serve the desire. Then that person is doing well to fight their urges. I don't think I can ever say that the pedophile kind of attraction is good.

Back to homosexual attraction, that is harder to fight by avoidance, half the population is male and half is female. Homosexuals likely won't be able to avoid their own sex. Jesus also said concerning adultry that if you lust for another woman you've commited adultry in your heart. So I might have the wrong approach here to say that by not acting on the attraction that would be enough. However that bit of advice is more then I can do myself as a heterosexual. I'm a married man because I am attracted to women. And that relationship helps me not burn with lust for women in a general way. To ask more then just them to control their actions is too hypocritical for me to set as a standard. If this makes more sense. I'm not taking Sellick's side to change the church to being pro gay. Just that in our assessment make their journey reachable, and hope on God's salvation to take them the rest of the way.

Toni Lavis, you said:

<<Well maybe give that a try then? Jesus is pretty much mute on the topic of homosexuality. He never comes out in favour - but he never condemns it either...>>

There's a error in this thinking. Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus continues to say strongly that anyone who dismisses the laws and encourages others to do the same will be the least in the Kindgom of God. But unless they are more rightous then the religous leaders they won't enter the kingdom at all.

With this in mind, unless Jesus says something pertaining to a law to change our understanding of it, we should take the laws as they say. The only instance where Jesus does this is about eating food that makes us unclean. Saying that it's not what food we put into our mouth that makes us unclean. But what we say that comes out of the mouth that makes us unclean. This is the only time I am aware of were Jesus addresses a law from the Okd Testiment to correct it in this kind of way. Sleeping with the same sex makes a person a homosexual just as killing a person makes someone a murderer, or stealing makes a person a their. Jesus never corrected the understanding that homosexual relationships is wrong. Therefore we do harm by putting that position in His mouth.

Dear Yuyutsu. My understanding that we all sin is not an endorsement of our sinning. The attitude that some take this stance and apply into homosexuality is that homosexuality is ok because we all sin. We should not apply this logic to adultry which breaks up marriages, or to murder that kills, or even to lies that do damage in their own pathagon kind of way. So we should not hold that stance as an excuse to continue on sinning with homosexuality either. We should walk the line, to understand our own sins before helping another with their own. In that humility perhaps we can help one another without our arrogance coming into our judgment. Or even to help without judging at all.

Does this make more sense?

Not_Now.Soon,

Matthew 5:28 was actually one of the verses I had in mind when I mentioned that the Bible sets up unrealistic, irrational, and immoral criteria by which to live. It’s also ridiculous because, outside of arranged marriages, virtually no-one would have gotten married or had children if they never looked at anyone else with lust.

<<Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus continues to say strongly that anyone who dismisses the laws and encourages others to do the same will be the least in the Kindgom of God … unless Jesus says something pertaining to a law to change our understanding of it, we should take the laws as they say. The only instance where Jesus does this is about eating food that makes us unclean.>>

I agree (except that he can’t change any of the old law without contradicting his point about not changing a "jot or title" of it).

I cite this part of the Sermon on the Mount every time Christians try to pretend that the Bible doesn’t endorse slavery. To do this, Christians tend to flexibly and selectively interpret what Jesus meant by “fulfilling the law”.

What it meant, as I’m sure you’ll agree, was that although God still enjoys the smell of burning blood, we no longer have to sacrifice animals to appease him, Jesus’ sacrifice replaced the need to do that. Whenever a nasty bit of the Old Testament is mentioned, however, “fulfil the law” is suddenly interpreted to mean that He came to chuck out the Old Testament.

You seem to know your Bible. That's a rare trait among Christians.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«My understanding that we all sin is not an endorsement of our sinning.»

Yes, I absolutely agree and even if I did not say a lot in my last post, I did understand and deeply appreciate your original post from Thursday, 24 August 2017 5:06:35 PM.

That said and while never endorsing sins, we may at times disagree over the details of what is sinful and to what degree.

A sin is that which makes one miss the mark and lose sight of God: this can occur in a multitude of gross and subtle ways.

Suppose you have a target which everyone around it is trying to shoot, or suppose you have a mountain which everyone around it is trying to climb. It could be true for someone to be told to aim exactly at 118.32' degrees NW, but for the person next it could be 118.29' or 118.35 - direction is determined not only by where we are heading, but also by where we come from.

Having animal bodies, we generally share the weakness of wanting to serve their impulses. This is the direction we come from in very broad terms. We also have human minds that introduce different impulses, so that changes our position too in some degree.

Observing this, some guidelines are general enough to be prescribed for nearly all people. If you have a group of people who are clustered together, sharing (not completely of course) the same lifestyle, then you can provide them with additional guidelines that might not be correct for other groups of people.

On topic, the problem with being "gay" is not the particular object of one's sexual attraction, but the intensity of attachment and identification with one's sexuality. Our bodies are wired the way they are, the problem is just when we make a big deal about it. I really don't think that homosexuality is more sinful than heterosexuality: the sin is in the fact and to the degree of turning away from God in preference of serving our animal body-minds instead, regardless how they happen to be wired.

' Jesus never corrected the understanding that homosexual relationships is wrong. Therefore we do harm by putting that position in His mouth.; '

so right Not_Now.Soon

He actually quoted from Genesis that a man is to leave his parents and a woman is to leave her parents.

I see in the UK a Labour woman pollie says that victims of muslim child abuse should shut up for the sake of diversity. Won't get coverage by the abc because only one of their own could get away with saying something so repulsive.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/

Dear Yuyutsu, if the target is God then He sets the standards, not us. Your perspective of what God is, is probably very different then God as I know Him. Therefore I want you to be aware of the difference in target. If God says something through the prophets he sends, then it is worth listening to. In both Judiasm and Christianity, the texts give an account of false religions and false prophets verses God's teachings and His prophets. If we want to hit the target, then we need to know what is from God and what is false gods. Otherwise it will be like chasing the wind.

AJ Philips, I have a request. Don't compliment me while at the same time belittle another. I'm glad think I know the bible well enough. If that was all you would have said that would have been enough. To your point that the standards unreasonable, and immoral, I disagree wholeheartedly. That they are unrealistic though that is almost true. Jesus said when questioned who can make it, that humanly speaking it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. We need to rely on God and trust Him.

Belittle another, Not_Now.Soon?

<<Don't compliment me while at the same time belittle another.>>

Who did I belittle, and what would that have to do with you?

<<To your point that the standards unreasonable, and immoral, I disagree wholeheartedly.>>

Why is that?

<<That [the standards of Biblical morality] are unrealistic though that is almost true.>>

Not just almost true, it’s entirely true. They are also irrational and immoral, and Matthew 5:28 is a good example of why.

<<Jesus said when questioned who can make it, that humanly speaking it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. We need to rely on God and trust Him.>>

I know, and this goes back to the loophole I mentioned - the doctrine of substitutionary atonement - which is an irrational and an immoral doctrine.

AJ Phillips, earlier you complimented me on knowing the bible, while at the same time commented that that is rare among Christians. Should I take the compliment and silently agree with your assessment of other christians? Would you take a simular compliment if it was directed to you but also negitively represented your country or the family you are born to? I hope you understand my meaning here and can accept my request. When giving a compliment don't include a jab at another. Least there is confusion to whether the compliment should be taken, or if the jab was the intended audiance or the person receiving the compliment.

Okay, Not_Now.Soon, I see what you meant now.

<<… you complimented me on knowing the bible, while at the same time commented that that is rare among Christians.>>

‘Rare’ might have been a slight overstatement, but this has been my observation. Studies even indicate that atheists have a surprising level of Biblical literacy when compared to Christians.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey

<<Should I take the compliment and silently agree with your assessment of other christians?>>

That’s up to you. Vocally agreeing or disagreeing would be another option. In my opinion, you should be more concerned with the accuracy of the statement.

<<Would you take a simular compliment if it was directed to you but also negitively represented your country or the family you are born to?>>

If it was accurate, yes, I would.

<<I hope you understand my meaning here and can accept my request.>>

I’ll try to avoid it, but can’t guarantee that I won’t in situations where noting unfavourable facts are of the utmost importance to the topic. I’ll grant that in this instance, it was not something that I had to say.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Any two persons must have a somewhat different perspective of God.
I don't see it as a problem since we all try to refer, using our feeble human minds, to the one and same God.

Yes, we need to navigate between two risks: one as you mentioned, which I acknowledge, is of chasing the wind, but the other is of following an inappropriate spiritual advice. An advice might be inappropriate for several reasons, such as the impurity of its giver, the impurity of the line of transmission, that it was provided to other people in other circumstances, or our own misunderstanding of it.

Sorry, we cannot wilfully guarantee ourselves to successfully cross on our own those difficult and treacherous waters between those straits: this is only possible by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit.

Yet, there are traits that we can develop to help us attract God's grace such as humility, non-violence, devotion, truth-telling, purity, austerity, contentment, study and reflection of scripture and surrender to God.

Rather than entering into long, foolish and futile discussions regarding the accuracy of the bible, from reading your various posts I observe that the biblical path seems to suit you and helps you to build (and even to teach) the above traits, so I only encourage you with joy to continue on that path and attain God's redemption through it. May God bless you.

Thank you for understanding AJ Philips. Sometime ago I met a person who was very good at pitting one person against another. Seemed to get enjoyment when setting people up to fight with eachother. One tactic was a compliment for one paired with an insult to another. Or even an insult to a group as a whole paired with a compliment "your not like them though" kind of thing. Since then I've very hesitant towards divisive tactics, even if they weren't meant in that way. The logic I'm asking here is based on these experiences. To be honest and without a chance of two faced aspects, it seems to be resonable to speak plainly to one person or one group. Usually a comparison between two people or two groups isn't nessary to say support or critism for the one you wish to address. In this way as long as you stay as respectful as you've shown so far, I don't mind the unfavorable facts and opinions.

... Moving on ...

To your point that the standards are unreasonable, and immoral, I disagree wholeheartedly. You asked why though. The standards in the bible all seem to serve a purpose. Either a moral aspect, a practical but still just element, or in some way to teach a lesson. In this way they all are individually resonable and none immoral. It is collectively that you conclude that they are unreasonable to follow, not individually. And at that point it is more a mark against us, not against God.

If the law is good and we can't step up to it's standards, then we are the ones that are immoral. If we are good and the law is restraining us to do evil then the law is immoral. To determine which is which look at the world around us. It is broken. Wars, poverty next door to luxury and wealth, cruelty for various reasons. Some cruelty because of a short temper, some because of a history between peoples. Without even looking at the natural elements like famine, hurricanes, or disease; we can look at the world we've built up as a people and as societies and conclude that we are the broken element. The immoral element.

As for being unrealistic, Jesus once said humanly speaking it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. This goes very well with the perspective of God's Redemention, and making us clean. Not just Jesus's sacrifice to justify us. But God to clean us, redeem us. Take us from being filthy rags to holy and seperate for God.

From my experience when I've asked God for help with sins, He's given it. He is there to help us and does help us. It's not just a philosophy to trap us into a religion to need him. It's a reality that we really do need Him.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It looks like you have a very healthy understanding. I don't mean that just by agreeing with what your saying but also with your patience in step with your words.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, the consoler who will lead us in truth (or was it to truth). And many desciples in the account of Acts showed an indepth understanding because of the Holy Spirit. Though I don't think we (or at least myself) are good judges for who God's given His Holy Spirit to. But my hope if that your understanding has come from that source. Your doubt in the bible though has me a bit concerned but who am I. If Gid is with you who can be against you. Only He will judge His servents, and say which are His and which were not. The rest of us are to live in the hopes God's promised us, and hold to the standards which are heavily held with loving one another and loving God.

Hope my foundation on the bible does not stray you from your faith, but it really is reliable. If you don't believe me ask Him.

Not_Now.Soon,

Sexuality is a common facet of humanity which religions often use to inspire a sense of guilt in us, because it’s one of the drives that we have the most difficulty controlling, and religions thrive when we’re inevitably going to fail to uphold an unrealistic standard, if we’re convinced that the religion provides the solution.

<<The standards in the bible all seem to serve a purpose.>>

Not always. One counter-example would be its denunciation of homosexuality, which is perhaps the most unrealistic, irrational, and immoral standards of the Bible concerning sexuality. Telling people they cannot be who they are is unrealistic, irrational, and immoral.

Sexual abstinence before marriage does serve a purpose with regards to disease prevention (But why did God make the diseases in the first place?) and unwanted pregnancies. But it is also somewhat unrealistic, and it’s certainly irrational and immoral when one considers the problems is can cause:

http://www.xojane.com/sex/true-love-waits-pledge

<<It is collectively that you conclude that they are unreasonable to follow, not individually.>>

No, it’s both.

<<And at that point it is more a mark against us, not against God.>>

Well, we can hardly be blamed for how were we made. Particularly (going back to omniscience) given that He would have known what was going to result, yet chose to continue with creating this reality anyway. Ultimately, it is a mark against God, if indeed He does exist.

<<… look at the world around us. It is broken. Wars, poverty …>>

On the contrary, by most measures, the world has never been better. We are living in the most peaceful times in human history. It doesn’t always feel like it, though, because we hear about every little thing that happens nowadays, and we are more sensitive to violence/poverty/etc. than we used to be. There is a consistent inverse correlation between societal health and religiosity:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://tyisnotahero.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/kpb5a1.png

<<As for being unrealistic, Jesus once said humanly speaking it is impossible ...>>

Of course. This goes back to what I was saying about religions perpetuating themselves, and often by demonising our sexuality to inspire an inevitable sense of guilt.

AJ, sexuality is a nice term, and if we ignore the other aspects of sex and lust, we might be swayed into thinking the term is all there is needed to know, and covers our freedom to choose what we want while at the same time being locked into a sexual path. (Not your bidy your choice any more, any questionable attitude of our gender or sex as well as our sexual desires are something we are born with.).

These are the topics of sexuality as I understand them. Though people debate these for their merits, I want you to know there is more to sexual lusts and attractions then just the scopes of sexuality. Young relationships in puberty as well as older relationships suffer when crossing sexual territory without a foundation of commitment. The laws for waiting till marriage would help so much confusion, anger, and frustration that most people go down because in relationships sex is now almost expected. If not right away, then eventually, but before anyone is serious enough to say "will you marry me?"

There is more harm not waiting then there is to wait. But social preasure has it reversed so it's also a burden to wait. A burden that is greater then it would be if it was just our sexual desires alone. There should be commitment held alongside sex or sex becomes a tease and a blight on society. "Get an abortion or you'll ruin your life." Porn and sexual addictions. Adultry and splitting up families because of people "falling in love" while still married to another. Do these things that aren't even criminal sound like the things of morality?

Don't get lost inmovie magic of romantic love stories. It's simple. Sex outside of marriage is a bad idea. Being in a bad relationship is no reason to seek out a new sexual partner. First leave the one bad relationship before getting "in love" with another. Any other outlook on it is selfish and self-deceptive.

As for homosexuality. I've already explained my views on that in this topic already. No need to repeat myself. I'll stand by what was already said. But regardless still trust in God's standards.

Last thought last thought is sexuality and the issue of hell. I'm sorry to inform you but having a loose temper is just as bad a having loose legs. The problem isn't the standard being wrong, it's that we as a people aren't good enough to keep it. So we do need God, and we need eachother to strengthen eachother up. Correct or encourage. Share in our joys and sorrows. And be kind to eachother's failing because we have our own failings too. In that way just like one piece of iron sharpens another. One person can to the same for another. God is still greater though and our needs for Him are in our lives.

Not_Now.Soon,

They can also inspire a lot of needless feelings of guilt when one gives in to one's natural desires (and I speak from experience there).

<<The laws for waiting till marriage would help so much confusion, anger, and frustration that most people go down because in relationships sex is now almost expected.>>

There’s also the issue of people not knowing if they’re sexually compatible until they’re married, and then living with serious problems which can sometimes lead to the eventual collapse of the marriage. Then there’s the more extreme cases like the one I linked you to.

<<There is more harm not waiting then there is to wait.>>

That’s highly debatable. I would go as far as to say ‘preposterous’ in today’s world for anyone who exercises some very basic precautionary measures. A blanket rule is clearly unrealistic and irrational; the devastating effects of an abstinence-only approach in some of the US Bible-belt states - with their higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and pornography viewing - suggests how ineffective and possibly damaging it is, too.

<<As for homosexuality. I've already explained my views on that in this topic already. No need to repeat myself.>>

Okay, going by what you’ve said then, this is by far one of the most unrealistic, irrational, and immoral standards of the Bible. I don’t think you said anything to suggest otherwise.

<<The problem isn't the standard being wrong, it's that we as a people aren't good enough to keep it.>>

Then the standards are at the very least unrealistic, and God would ultimately bear the responsibility for any failings on our behalf.

Why would a god create people that he knew would never be able to keep the rules he was going to set?

<<So we do need God …>>

Of course. The rules' simplicity, and the inadequate blanket approach which they take to some rather complex issues, is what ensures that we will always need the god that supposedly set them.

AJ Phillips,

<<They can also inspire a lot of needless feelings of guilt when one gives in to one's natural desires (and I speak from experience there).>>

This is the most practical kind of argument in my opinion. We can talk about our experiences and it will be better then holding our own standards of right and wrong.

I've felt that kind of guilt too. It's not a plesent feeling. But there are worse alternatives. Have you been in a relationship where sex was something the other person tried to manipulate you with? With that person I should have ended the relationship long before it broke, being the first sexual relationship the feeling that I loved her and had sex with her was too intermixed and became a gue to an unhealthy relationship. A worse alternative then guilt in my opinion.

I've also experienced the feeling of extreem betrayal with a girl I loved and though loved me back. Had I had the expectation to wait till marriage in that relationship, the amount of myself and my efforts might not have stung so fiercely, when she decided our relationship wasn't worth it. That experience taught me that you need to make sure the other person is willing to try for you and put effort into the relationship as well. Sex in the relationship added insult to the broken aftermath.

In response to the point that there is more harm in not waiting then there is in waiting, AJ Phillips, you said:

<<That’s highly debatable. I would go as far as to say ‘preposterous’ in today’s world for anyone who exercises some very basic precautionary measures. A blanket rule is clearly unrealistic and irrational; the devastating effects of an abstinence-only approach in some of the US Bible-belt states - with their higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and pornography viewing - suggests how ineffective and possibly damaging it is, too.>>

I would call that an unhealthy symptom of society, due to our focus and preasure regarding sex as an early part of any romantic relationship. If there is nothing that teaches people to have restraint when they feel "in love" then as a population the strain is hard to resist those urges. As societies we've built and marketed many narratives that encourage sex early on in the explosion of passion. It's already a natural desire. It doesn't need much encouragement to also feel justified, when it is wrong. Teen pregnancy, abortion, and pronography are all characterists of not holding back. Rape on the other hand is when there is someone who says no, and the other forces it anyways. If there was better elements of restraint in our culture, rape might not be as high a statistic.

<<Of course. The rules' simplicity, and the inadequate blanket approach which they take to some rather complex issues, is what ensures that we will always need the god that supposedly set them.>>

You're right that these are complex issues. But the solutions don't have to be as complicated. Some of the most complicated issues start from either you or someone else doing something they shouldn't do. Then after we've all made a mess of it all it can be said that it's complimicated. The solution might not be easy, but it still might be simple.

Not_Now.Soon,

We can come up with many reasons as to why it might be better to abstain from sex until marriage, but this does not get around the problems that can be created by doing so.

<<I would call [higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and pornography viewing] an unhealthy symptom of society, due to our focus and preasure regarding sex as an early part of any romantic relationship.>>

Sure, but then why are these problems worse in states that take a more simplistic, blanket (and Christian) approach to sex and sexuality?

You seem to have missed my point, which was that God’s rules are clearly inadequate and overly-simplistic. The US Bible-Belt was my real-world example of that. The US states that take a more realistic and sophisticated approach to sex and sexuality don’t have as high rates as of teen pregnancy, abortion, porn consumption.

<<If there is nothing that teaches people to have restraint when they feel "in love" then as a population the strain is hard to resist those urges.>>

The ability to abstain from sex long-term is hard to sustain regardless of what societies teach/condone. We’ve evolved that way, and probably wouldn’t be here today had we not. You seem to acknowledge this, somewhat.

<<Teen pregnancy, abortion, and pronography are all characterists of not holding back.>>

(Well, that’s debatable where pornography is concerned.)

They are also the result of unrealistic expectations and overly-simplistic approaches, as the US Bible-Belt suggests.

<<You're right that these are complex issues. But the solutions don't have to be as complicated.>>

They do if we want to adequately prevent the problems that may arise.

<<Some of the most complicated issues start from either you or someone else doing something they shouldn't do. Then after we've all made a mess of it all it can be said that it's complimicated.>>

No, you’re only talking about after the fact, now. The issues before the fact are also complex.

But you do raise another good point: the Christian God provides little-to-no guidance on what to do when his rules prove inadequate.

do you really believe your own lies AJ. No one can ever win an arguement with you because you claim not to believe in absolutes except for the ever changing rot you write.

runner,

If you could point to a single lie I've told, I'd be happy to explain myself.

*Crickets chirping*