Homosexuality is illogical?

[homeloan]

No one has a life free of travails. Even Mary who was sinless had a sword pierce her heart. By the same token, no one has exactly the same hardships. Some are quick to anger, others are egotists, others have a predisposition to violence, some are habitual liars, and so on. We each have our crosses to bear. Some happen to have the cross of homosexuality.

Yep, no one told us it would be easy. Certainly, from the religious writings & sources we have, God blames us for our own travails. Yet He is the one who put the silly tree with the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, yet he forbade A & E to eat from it. Seriously, doesn’t this sound more like a fairy tale than a historical event?

He had plenty of tolerance. When they were too far gone to be saved, he made an example of them to help save others.

Moral of the story. Don’t PO the Big Guy…

All she had to do was do what he said, which was simply to not look back at an evil place being wiped from the earth.

Yeah, that sounds simple enough sitting here nice & cozy in front of our computers. If you heard a deafening explosion, don’t you think your reflexes might cause you to look in that direction? That story seems over-the-top also, but it too also sounds like a fairy tale…

God knew it, but we didn’t.

Of course he knew it. He’s omnipotent, omniscient, etc., etc. So why did He let it happen? I’m sure there were women and children in the population of Sodom. What were their sins? Why didn’t he just murder the homo’s. Why did He murder the women and children?

We still have the ability to say “no” to those urges. It’s hard, but you can do it. And what kind of virtue would a life be if you were the most twisted soul in the world but by chance never came into occasion to sin?

There’s a long, long line of transgressors, Gov Spitzer, Pres Clinton, molesting priests, adulturous evangelists, et al. No doubt, God will damn 'em all because they screwed up. But, God knew in advance they would screw up because He’s omnipotent, omniscient, omni… , omni…, etc.,etc. So, why did He set all of this in motion in the first place? Was He bored? Couldn’t He control his rebellious angels? Is He not all-powerful?

 

[East_and_West]

There’s a long, long line of transgressors, Gov Spitzer, Pres Clinton, molesting priests, adulturous evangelists, et al. No doubt, God will damn 'em all because they screwed up. But, God knew in advance they would screw up because He’s omnipotent, omniscient, omni… , omni…, etc.,etc. So, why did He set all of this in motion in the first place? Was He bored? Couldn’t He control his rebellious angels? Is He not all-powerful?

First of all God did not cause the sin. We did. Second, he created the universe for one purpose, he wanted to share his grace with us and could not do so if we did not exist. That simple. Our existance is a divine gift, a completely selfless act on God’s part, no matter what we choose to do with it.

 

[Flying_Bison]

OK Homeloan

what is your defense up to now

1. Is it that no one can control urges so we should act on them no matter what

or

1. Only Gays can’t control their urges. So they must act on them.

or

1. Thoughts of homosexuality and actions are equal. By that train of Logic one could be put in prison for thinking about selling drugs.

You have made no logical argument against my claim, except that you think because Gays have homosexual urges they are destined to act upon them. Is that your argument.

Also, for the record, your representation of the Christian concept of God is seriously flawed, so thus your argument using the Christian concept of God is based on your concept of God not ours.

Lastly, I attempted to use reasonable logical arguments and did not bring theology into the discussion. I never said homosexuality is wrong because God said so. That argument only appeals to those who believe in God. I used pure logic and Biology, but NOT God. Yet your claim that Homosexuality is right because Christian are decieved by believing in God. That neither answers my argument nor does it make any sense.

Not believing Christian teacings doesn’t make a case for the logic of homosexuality. It only shows that you don’t believe in Christian theology, not that homosexuality is logical

 

[buffalo]

Why did God choose to give us urges that would cause the majority of the humans He created to act upon them, thus proving what God already knew (omniscient) that we’re weak.

If He wouldn’t have let those of us who were too weak to resist (which He would already know in advance), then He wouldn’t have to send us to damnation.

I don’t see how you keep bringing this back to “man’s fault” (or fall, or original sin, etc.).

God chose to set it up this way. And we get blamed for following these powerful urges He gave us. What kind of a deal is that?

I guess He intended to make it hard to attain eternal happiness.

He could have made partial free-will I suppose. Self mastery and perfection is what we are journeying toward.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Bryce, didn’t I see you leave early right after communion yesterday…

No, I don’t participate in the Judas shuffle.

That, and I can’t take Communion yet, I’m starting RCIA end of this summer.

 

[Swan]

While it is possible that God made some people with a predisposed attraction to the same sex, it doesn’t follow that he made them to commit sexual sin. We may find that people are born with a predisposition to violence (whether genetic or biologically/chemically caused), but it would not logically follow that we should then decide that such people are allowed to commit violent acts because they were “born that way.”

Doesn’t this beg the question of why God would do such a thing? For example, I suffer from mani-depression which has a huge impact on my life and the lives of those around me. I often ask why God did this, especially when I do things as a result of my illness which I would not do otherwise - in other words, when my illness controls me instead of the other way around. I once had to be hospitalized for suicidal depression. I had more than I could handle. The analogy I came up with was that of a bridge designer. If you design a bridge to carry a maximum load of 2 tons then deliberately drive a 5 ton truck over it and the bridge fails, isn’t it the fault of the designer?

 

[homeloan]

OK Homeloan
what is your defense up to now

1. Is it that no one can control urges so we should act on them no matter what

I didn’t say that, Bison. I said God gave us urges. My question was why? He would have known in advance some could control them, others couldn’t. He damn’s those who couldn’t. But, He knows/knew in advance who could & who couldn’t.

1. Only Gays can’t control their urges. So they must act on them.

Nor did I say that. Some can, some can’t. Personally, I think the facts bare out that the molesting priests (of young boys) for the most part had homosexual tendencies they couldn’t control. Yet, I believe there are many priests w/homosexual tendencies who do control them and who are excellent priests. Just as the priesthood is celibate, most priests with or without homosexual tendencies stick to their vows and are excellent priests and we are inspired by their piety and sacrifice.

1. Thoughts of homosexuality and actions are equal. By that train of Logic one could be put in prison for thinking about selling drugs.

Holy Scipture tells us “LUST” is sinful: Job 31:1st dozen or so verses; Ex 20:17 (part of 10 commandments); Jesus only condemns sexual lust as a sin for males; Matt 5:28 “… anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultry with her in his thoughts.” All quotes from NAB

You have made no logical argument against my claim, except that you think because Gays have homosexual urges they are destined to act upon them. Is that your argument.

No, you’re reading more into my statements than are there (or that I intended). My argument applies to all. God gave us urges but then condemns us if we act upon them. So, the deck is stacked against us. My question: why would He have done it this way? We’re like sitting ducks. Sure, there are some who are steeled with resistance, but there are lots more who aren’t. Yet, God knew in advance who was and who wasn’t. He then condemns those who weren’t. So, for yielding to ones urges for the brief flicker of time one is here on earth, God then condemns he/she to an eternity of torture, pain, and agony. Isn’t this a little over the top?

Also, for the record, your representation of the Christian concept of God is seriously flawed, so thus your argument using the Christian concept of God is based on your concept of God not ours.

That’s why I’m posting these questions/issues on a Christian/Catholic forum. I’m not the only one having trouble reconciling a loving God to a violent, “sinful” world. I may be the only one asking these tough questions, but I’ll bet there are a significant number of other Christian’s / Catholic’s who are troubled too. If it weren’t true, there wouldn’t be so many RC’s who either quit the Church altogether or go to some other denomination hoping to find answers to complex issues.

Lastly, I attempted to use reasonable logical arguments and did not bring theology into the discussion. I never said homosexuality is wrong because God said so. That argument only appeals to those who believe in God. I used pure logic and Biology, but NOT God. Yet your claim that Homosexuality is right because Christian are decieved by believing in God. That neither answers my argument nor does it make any sense.

I’m not arguing for or against homosexuality. I’m not concerned with the biology of homosexuality. If I was, I wouldn’t be posting on a Christian /Catholic website. And, I never said homosexuality is right because we’re deceived by God. I say we’re set up, one and all, because we have natural inclinations (that go way, way beyond sexual issues) and that these inclinations (greed, sloth, gluttony, alcoholism, addiction, cruelity, pessimissem, gossip, judgement, etc.) for the most part are opposed to Church theology and a standard of behavior espoused by our Faith.

Not believing Christian teacings doesn’t make a case for the logic of homosexuality. It only shows that you don’t believe in Christian theology, not that homosexuality is logical

I disagree. It shows that you don’t like my questions and you’re fixated on what you think is my advocacy of homosexuality. You’re wrong there and you’re wrong on your interpretation of my belief in Christian theology.

Outside of that, you and I probably agree on everything else in the world. Peace!

 

[homeloan]

No, I don’t participate in the Judas shuffle.

That, and I can’t take Communion yet, I’m starting RCIA end of this summer.

Oh boy! If you take some of these wild-west questions to your RCIA sponsors, you’d better take them some Rolaids and a warm glass of milk…

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Often as a Catholic when trying to defend one’s position we are told that we are Bigotted and illogical. I often find that this is simply a ploy to avoid defending an illogical argument for homosexuality.
I would also like to say that I in NO WAY hate or are bigotted against homosexuals, I simply do not agree with their actions. Here are some of the arguments.

1. If you do not approve of the actions of Gay you hate gay people
   This is completely illogical. One can easily disagree with ones actions and not personally hate them. If a parent punishes a child do they hate the child. NO they simply disagree with their actions.

2)You are discriminating against Gays
No, not agreeing with ones actions is not discrimination. Discrimination is intolerance solely based on ones inherent qualities (ex. race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) If this argument were logical it would mean that every black man in Jail for Murder and sentenced by a white judge was the victim of discrimination even if he actually committed the crime. No one can be against ones actions without basing it on their race gender, etc.

3)**But if two peole love each other shouldn’t they be allowed marry and have sex. **
The short answer is sometimes. Not everyone everyone who loves each other should have sex. (Ex. child and parent, sister and brother, Married man and unwed coworker etc.) In the same token, Love does not equal marriage and sex. Love should be part of sex and marriage, but you can love someone without having sex with them or marrying them.

1. **I was born this way and can’t help it, so stop pushing your views on me. **
   No one knows if people are born gay first off, and even if someone is born a certain way and is predisposed to behavior that in no way means that they are obliged to act on it. For example, men born with two YY chromosomes are predisposed to violence, does that mean that we allow them to be violent. Alcoholism has genetic roots, do we allow these people to become drunks because the have an urge to.
2. Gays aren’t hurting anyone
   True having homosexual urges doesn’t hurt anyone, agreed. Promoting Gay lifestyles may. For one, no one knows if homosexuality is genetic, environmental, or both. If it is wholly or in part environmental, promotion of Gay lifestyles can actually entice one to be Gay and thus hurt their chances of reproducing and furthuring the species. Many people will say that the Church is against science and appeal to science to back up a claim, but if this is the case so are proponent of the Gay lifestyle. Being Gay would be completely against any Darwinian theory. So for the time being, since no one is clear on whether homosexuality has an environmental component, shouldn’t we avoid advocating the Gay lifestyle so as not to predispose children to it an thus hurt their chances at having a heterosexual disposition and reproducing.
3. I chose same sex partner and you chose opposite sex partners what is the difference
   Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationsips are not the same. Heterosexual sex is how nature designed it, and it can also result in procreation. Homosexual sex is unnatural biologically and never can result in procreation. So one act is ordered and one is disordered. They are in no way equivalent. Heterosexual sex is simlpy natural and homosexual relationship is unnatural. They are not equivalent.
4. **But Heterosexuals use contraception, have affairs, use sex only for plearure, etc. **
   So, just because heterosexuals abuse sex does not mean that we should embrace every kind of sexual abuse. People who have heterosexual urges or homosexual urges can both abuse sex. When they do this that means they are both wrong, not both right. So if my neighbor cheats on his wife does that mean that I have the right to do the same thing, of course not. Abuse by one group does not give license for another group to commit abuses.

Just this week there was a well written series about these things over at the Catholics United For the Faith Blog:

Born That Way
Once Gay, Always Gay?
Christian Defense (Not Defensive Christians)
An Unhealthy Lifestyle
Gay Parenthood

Worth checking out.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Homeloan

The purpose on the beginning of the thread was to show that the prepositions put forth to me in my life by Gay rights activist as logical are actually illogical.

You have divulged into questioning the nature of God and have not answered the orgional question posed.

The question is not whether, God makes us sin, or if he omnipotent etc.

The question is that Gay rights advocates, seem to say that religion is silly and all the matters is logic, and they thus state their claims as logical.

I am simply posing that their claims are illogical…

So, you have not proved that my reasoning about the Gay lifestyle is illogical, but instead are trying to prove that God faulty.

That is NOT the question, it is “is there the logic in the Gay rights argument as they claim” I posed that it is not logical.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Also, Homeloan I would like to say that your view of God is not in line with Catholic belief. I only say that so that when arguments occur, people compare apples to apple.

Catholic theology states that God gave humans Reason, free will, and the choice to love him.
At first God protected his creation, because the followed him. It was at that time that Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge and gave it to her husband Adam. People say “Oh that is just a fairy tale.” Well, the truth is we do not know if it is a historical truth and most likely it isn’t , but that is not the point. It is a story to show God’s relationship with man.

To Continue, Man chose to trust in Man (ex. the tree of knowledge, prettt good symbolism) instead of God, thus hurting our relationship with God.

To this Day people have the same free choice. Tree of Knowledge (money, power, sex, drugs, wordly posseions etc. ) or God. Some people choose the tree and some God. All have urges to to sin AND not just Gays.

Additionally, God is forgiving and does not Damn anyone. Gays or heterosexuals or child molesters etc. We Damn ourselves by turning to the Tree instead of God.

God set us up to Love him, by giving us free will. He did not set us up to fail. He gave us his word in the Bible, his son in Jesus, his Church in the Catholic church, his grace with the Sacraments. He set us up to suceed and gave us all the tools to overcome our faults. Some fail and ask for forgiveness and try again, wile some say deny the Love of God and continue to say I don’t need God. One must remember though that there is no Love without free will. You can’t force someone to love you or else it isn’t Love. God is the same way, some turn away and hate God, while some admit their sins, ask for forgiveness, and strive to be closer to God. That is the mystery of Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Doesn’t this beg the question of why God would do such a thing? For example, I suffer from mani-depression which has a huge impact on my life and the lives of those around me. I often ask why God did this, especially when I do things as a result of my illness which I would not do otherwise - in other words, when my illness controls me instead of the other way around. I once had to be hospitalized for suicidal depression. I had more than I could handle. The analogy I came up with was that of a bridge designer. If you design a bridge to carry a maximum load of 2 tons then deliberately drive a 5 ton truck over it and the bridge fails, isn’t it the fault of the designer?

Hi Swan,

The problem is that you are making the assumption that suffering is a bad thing. My understanding is that suffering can be a gift, because it helps us draw closer to God.

I don’t always understand or explain this concept very well, so forgive me while I turn it over to someone much smarter than I am - Peter Kreeft:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203fea1.asp

The evil of sin can be explained by human free will. But what of the evil of suffering, especially unjust, undeserved suffering? If there is God, why is there Job?

There are only two possibilities: Either God is wrong or we are. Either these sufferings are not good or they are. Either we do not need them and yet God allows them, in which case he is either wicked or weak or stupid; or we do need them, in which case “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28 KJV). *All *things, even the most horrendous and inexplicable tragedies.

We live by faith, not by sight. If we live by sight, we will probably conclude when tragedy strikes, “So *that’s *what God is like. Deceive yourself no longer.” If we live by faith, by trust, by “the fear of the Lord [that] is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10), we will conclude that God is the one who knows what is good for us and that we are the ones who don’t, rather than vice versa. (Is that an unreasonable conclusion?)

I know it’s not easy for anyone to accept the idea that their _________ (fill in the blank: homosexual urges, manic depression, blindness, deafness, etc.) is actually a blessing. I certainly don’t always understand God’s plan, so I keep praying for understanding and try my best to do what I believe is His will.

btw…if I understand correctly, if you commit a grave sin “as a result of illness which would not do otherwise,” it may not be a mortal sin because it may not satisfy all three requirements to be mortal.

 

[homeloan]

Homeloan; The purpose on the beginning of the thread was to show that the prepositions put forth to me in my life by Gay rights activist as logical are actually illogical.

I would respect your topic and follow it more to the letter if you would have identified yourself as gay. But unless I missed it, I don’t think you have. Therefore, I guess your issue involves your conflict with Gay Rights Activists, as you’ve stated.

It seems to me from reading your manifesto you’re disapproving of the Gay lifestyle. Nothing I’ve found whatsoever in the OT seems to give the Gay lifestyle any quarter. Don’t think I’m aware of any NT advocacy other than Jesus seems to care for the outcasts of society.

From what I’ve been exposed to in Mass, readings, etc., I think the Church is of the position, “hate the sin, love the sinner”, which is tolerable and more or less what you’d expect.

But the homosexual inclination exists among the world’s population, regardless of nation, at approximately 10% of males & 5% of females (Kinsey, Newsweek, Fortune, Washington Times, Family Therapy Network, American Psychology Association, etc). These percentages have been challenged and there are some studies that suggest homosexuals only make up 1.1% of world population.

But if the world population is 9.6 billion, even at 1.1%, there would be 105 million homosexuals living among us. But, if its the higher estimate, 10% for males & 5% for females, then we’re living among 480 million gay men and 240 million lesbians.

How logical is it to paint all those souls into a “don’t ask, don’t tell” corner with a whole bunch of rules that don’t apply to you?

I’m reminded of Matthew’s Gospel, 7:3, worrying about the speck in someone else’s eye when we have a beam in our… (paraphrased).

I concluded that the urges the homosexuals have is similar to the urges non-homosexuals have. So, what is logical (at least to me) is where do these urges come from?

I believe in God. I believe that God created all of us, homosexuals as well as non-homosexuals. I believe whatever talents, gifts or handicaps we have, they all come from God; including our urges.

Thus, we’re told God disapproves of these urges, so my question was (and is), Why Did He Give Us These Negative Urges?

I find that question very logical and fitting to your topic. I’m sorry you don’t.

 

[homeloan]

Also, Homeloan I would like to say that your view of God is not in line with Catholic belief. I only say that so that when arguments occur, people compare apples to apple.

I ask questions. Does the mere asking questions, using examples, put me at odds with the Catholic Church? I wouldn’t think so, but there are “Cathologists” who might tell me otherwise and I’m not astute enough to argue the opposite.

So far, I don’t confess these controversial questions at the Sacrament. It hasn’t weighed on me to do so. Do I have doubts of Faith. Absolutely! What causes these doubts? My questions.

See, its the old “chicken or egg” dilemma.

Personally, if I were a woman using artificial BC to prevent pregnancy I don’t think I’d confess it at the Sacrament. But I’m pretty sure that would put me at odds with the Church. But if I had lived in the 14th Century I would have taken exception to paying indulgences, something sanctioned at the time.

I, like many RC’s, don’t like the preponderence of the burden of abortion falling almost entirely on the woman. If we had female clergy, maybe I’d feel differently. But we don’t. So to me, it seems more evidence of male domination within the Church. I, like many RC’s am at odds with the Chruch’s opposition to the stem cell issue.

But opposition isn’t sufficient to make me reject Roman Catholicism. I’m not ready to pin 95 theses to the Wittenburg door.

 

[Flying_Bison]

I would respect your topic and follow it more to the letter if you would have identified yourself as gay. But unless I missed it, I don’t think you have. Therefore, I guess your issue involves your conflict with Gay Rights Activists, as you’ve stated.

It seems to me from reading your manifesto you’re disapproving of the Gay lifestyle. Nothing I’ve found whatsoever in the OT seems to give the Gay lifestyle any quarter. Don’t think I’m aware of any NT advocacy other than Jesus seems to care for the outcasts of society.

From what I’ve been exposed to in Mass, readings, etc., I think the Church is of the position, “hate the sin, love the sinner”, which is tolerable and more or less what you’d expect.

But the homosexual inclination exists among the world’s population, regardless of nation, at approximately 10% of males & 5% of females (Kinsey, Newsweek, Fortune, Washington Times, Family Therapy Network, American Psychology Association, etc). These percentages have been challenged and there are some studies that suggest homosexuals only make up 1.1% of world population.

But if the world population is 9.6 billion, even at 1.1%, there would be 105 million homosexuals living among us. But, if its the higher estimate, 10% for males & 5% for females, then we’re living among 480 million gay men and 240 million lesbians.

How logical is it to paint all those souls into a “don’t ask, don’t tell” corner with a whole bunch of rules that don’t apply to you?

I’m reminded of Matthew’s Gospel, 7:3, worrying about the speck in someone else’s eye when we have a beam in our… (paraphrased).

I concluded that the urges the homosexuals have is similar to the urges non-homosexuals have. So, what is logical (at least to me) is where do these urges come from?

I believe in God. I believe that God created all of us, homosexuals as well as non-homosexuals. I believe whatever talents, gifts or handicaps we have, they all come from God; including our urges.

Thus, we’re told God disapproves of these urges, so my question was (and is), Why Did He Give Us These Negative Urges?

I find that question very logical and fitting to your topic. I’m sorry you don’t.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Homeloan

**You still have not answered the question from the OP. My question is the Logic of Gay Rights claims. All you have done is given your subjective ideas about God’s plan and that you don’t think that God would object to Gay behavior. That is in NO way answering the OP. The OP was about the Logic of the Gay rights claim NOT whether Catholic teaching on God is correct. **

My questioning of Gay rights claims are indeed valid whether I am gay or not. That is like saying during WWII our opinions and criticisms of the Nazis were invalid because we weren’t Nazis. It is nonsense that my questioning of Gay rights claims are invalid because I am not Gay.

Lastly, like many you have said that God said to Love others and not to Judge them. Yes I agree, but Love does not mean giving one approval for bad behavior. Questioning ones behavior in NO way means that I don’t love them. When my parents grounded me did that mean that they hated me. NO on the contrary they loved me enoug to try and correct my bad behavior.
I have not judged anyone. Questioning peoples actions in NO way is judging them. I am judging their actions not their personhood. Jesus NEVER said don’t judge others actions and tell people to do whatever they want.

 

[homeloan]

Often as a Catholic when trying to defend one’s position we are told that we are Bigotted and illogical. I often find that this is simply a ploy to avoid defending an illogical argument for homosexuality.
I would also like to say that I in NO WAY hate or are bigotted against homosexuals, I simply do not agree with their actions. Here are some of the arguments.

1) If you do not approve of the actions of Gay you hate gay people

I’m not familiar with this premise, so I don’t know if its an official position of gays. So I’m not going to judge what they do or don’t do. Otherwise they might find the beam in my eye as I meticulously look for the speck in theirs.

2)You are discriminating against Gays

I don’t discriminate and I’ve not heard any homilies or criticism from my Church that would indicate to me that it discriminates. Be mighty disappointed if I did.

3)**But if two peole love each other shouldn’t they be allowed marry and have sex. **

It’s none of my business what two adults choose to do in private. If it bothers them and they are RC’s, they can confess at the Sacrament and if they don’t feel they’re getting nourished by the Church, then they’re free to leave.

4) **I was born this way and can’t help it, so stop pushing your views on me. **

I agree with this statement. I’d encourage them to take it up with God. If they feel the Church is too rigid for them, they’re free to leave.

5) Gays aren’t hurting anyone

Right on! Back to the “beam” vs “speck” in ones eye…

6) I chose same sex partner and you chose opposite sex partners what is the difference

Not my business. “Beam vs speck” again…

7) **But Heterosexuals use contraception, have affairs, use sex only for plearure, etc. **

No argument there. “Beam vs speck”…

I hope I’ve followed the template of your original topic a little better. Sorry for diverting it into an area you saw as off-topic.

Bet you don’t approve of my on-topic answers to your quest to find logic, do you?

 

[Flying_Bison]

Thank you for your response homeloan

I am glad that you answered my questions honestly and directly. It is only through addressing the questions that true debate can occur.

I am trying to sum up your argument though.
Are you saying that we have no right to question others actions because we may have done bad things in the past.

If this is the case why is anyone in Jail, who are we to judge someone who did something wrong. As a society we do this all the time. I had an Alcoholic come to my grammar school and tell us not to drink. By your reasoning, he has no right to tell us not to drink because he drank heavily for years.

The beam and splinter also, I feel does not hold much weight as well. You must read the rest of the passage. It never tells Christians never to question the acts of others. I states that we should examine our deeds and consciences before examining others. NEVER does the passage say you have a beam in your leave it there and don’t bother to help anyone else remove their speck.

I do however, think that the forementioned alcoholic from a previous paragraph does put the beam speck into perspective. Before, he talked with us he had quit drinking and was now free to try to prevent us from having the same beam.

As a side note, I probably have 50 trees in my eyes, but I try to remove them daily so as to help others with their specks.

 

[homeloan]

Thank you for your response homeloan

I am glad that you answered my questions honestly and directly. It is only through addressing the questions that true debate can occur.

I am trying to sum up your argument though.
Are you saying that we have no right to question others actions because we may have done bad things in the past.

Not necessarily; I get aggravated with kinfolk who won’t confront their errant kids who might be in danger (drinking, grass, sex, etc.) because they did those things too and now feel guilty telling their offspring they can’t…

If this is the case why is anyone in Jail, who are we to judge someone who did something wrong. As a society we do this all the time. I had an Alcoholic come to my grammar school and tell us not to drink. By your reasoning, he has no right to tell us not to drink because he drank heavily for years.

Precisely! He can recommend that we don’t drink. We then choose to follow his advice or not.

The beam and splinter also, I feel does not hold much weight as well. You must read the rest of the passage. It never tells Christians never to question the acts of others. I states that we should examine our deeds and consciences before examining others. NEVER does the passage say you have a beam in your leave it there and don’t bother to help anyone else remove their speck.

I agree; but I disagree with the focus on the “gay” thing. Who am I to condemn them for their “legal” behavior if it only consists of consensual intimacy between adults. To me, that’s their business, and I do believe the “beam - spec” analogy applies.

I do however, think that the forementioned alcoholic from a previous paragraph does put the beam speck into perspective. Before, he talked with us he had quit drinking and was now free to try to prevent us from having the same beam.

I don’t disagree. We’re free to take his advice, based on his negative experience, or we can ignore it. Or, we can tell him to take a hike.

As a side note, I probably have 50 trees in my eyes, but I try to remove them daily so as to help others with their specks.

Yeah, I’ve got “Lumberjacks-R-Us” on my speed-dial…

 

[East_and_West]

The logic of homosexuality:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501855/posts

Yeah. That’s sounds healthy.