Professor Rosaria Butterfield gives a powerful and brave speech to students.

[Dicky Underpants]

Sriram,

"Homo"sexual activity is seen across a wide range of species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Presumably therefore you would consider it to be part of the "natural order" too. Why then, according to your definition, call it a "sin"?

I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

"Homo"sexual activity is seen across a wide range of species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Presumably therefore you would consider it to be part of the "natural order" too. Why then, according to your definition, call it a "sin"?

I think that Sriram is using 'natural order' in a more prescriptive sense than what happens in nature. His 'survival, reproduction, parenting' is his selected base axiom for what is moral. As with all such selected axioms, it is subjective despite attempts to dress it in the raiment of objectivity with a pretty, vacant term like 'natural order'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dicky,

I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".

Bloody sticklebacks and their irresponsible lifestyles. Sinful! Sinful!

[Sriram]

I don't know how the discussion suddenly became about homosexuality! That was furthest from my mind when I talked of sin. Many people in the West seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, positively or negatively.  NS just likes to digress and take the discussion where he finds it convenient.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know how the discussion suddenly became about homosexuality! That was furthest from my mind when I talked of sin. Many people in the West seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, positively or negatively.  NS just likes to digress and take the discussion where he finds it convenient.

Because that's what the thread is about. I suggest you read it from the start.

[Sriram]

I must admit I have not read the opening posts. My mistake. 

[Nearly Sane]

I must admit I have not read the opening posts. My mistake. 

[Sriram]

Same to you,,,sir!

[Sriram]

At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world. Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world.  They are however not acceptable in human society.

The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.

[Nearly Sane]

At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world. Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world.  They are however not acceptable in human society.

The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.

I think you are misreading people here. They were pointing out that if you were relying on the 'natural order', the phrase you introduced as a justification then homosexuality eas fine based on your approach. You probably want to start from scratch on this thread.

ETA Given you now know that the thread is about homisexuality, your post reads as if you are comparing it to cannibalism, and saying that society should be conyrolling Aruntraveller's lifestyle. It may be that this is just a hangover from your original mistake but underlines that you may want to state a clear position on the subject of the thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world.

“Your people” weren’t – you were. Here:

“Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.” (Reply 169)

If you think non-alignment with the “natural order” (whatever that means) should define what’s “sinful” then homosexuality isn’t sinful. Your test, your conclusion.

Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world.  They are however not acceptable in human society.

Interesting set of comparisons with homosexuality you’ve made there. Why not instead say something like, “loving relationships, care for others, group responsibility are all part of many species in the animal world. They are moreover acceptable in the human world”?”   

The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.

“The very idea of spirituality” is incoherent – somethng you’ve repeated, if unwittingly, demonstrated here. 

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

“Your people” weren’t – you were. Here:

“Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.” (Reply 169)

If you think non-alignment with the “natural order” (whatever that means) should define what’s “sinful” then homosexuality isn’t sinful. Your test, your conclusion.

Interesting set of comparisons with homosexuality you’ve made there. Why not instead say something like, “loving relationships, care for others, group responsibility are all part of many species in the animal world. They are moreover acceptable in the human world”?”   

“The very idea of spirituality” is incoherent – somethng you’ve repeated, if unwittingly, demonstrated here.

Sriram did not realise the thread was.about homosexuality - see previous posts. I've suggested that hevneeds to start from scratch rather than reply to posts made by people in reply to him who had read the thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Sriram did not realise the thread was.about homosexuality - see previous posts. I've suggested that hevneeds to start from scratch rather than reply to posts made by people in reply to him who had read the thread.

Fair enough, though if he seriously wants to essay the idea that that which is "against the natural order" is thereby "sinful" then he exonerates homosexuality from that charge as much as he exonerates any other "natural order" behaviours.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Fair enough, though if he seriously wants to essay the idea that that which is "against the natural order" is thereby "sinful" then he exonerates homosexuality from that charge as much as he exonerates any other "natural order" behaviours.   

As covered earlier, I don't think he's saying because something happens in nature that it's ok, so that seems to me a straw man. Given he didn't know the thread was about homosexuality, then as well as thinking he needs to start afresh with what he's trying to say that we should forget about his posting on the thread up till now.

[Alan Burns]

I came upon this forum by tracking down a friend, Leonard James, with whom I had several years of exchanges on other forums.  Leonard was openly gay, and I was openly Christian.  In our exchanges we were able to acknowledge our differences and still build up a long lasting friendship.  Leonard was able to recognise that my motives in sharing my Christian faith were a sincere attempt to share what I considered to be the Good News with others in order for them to reap the ultimate reward of eternal salvation.  I failed to convince him, but we were still able to share our views in a way which enabled our friendship to grow.  Leonard sympathised with some of the aggressive responses I received and warned me in a PM that I would be on a rough ride in sharing my Christian views on this forum - how right he was!  A feel sure that Leonard is sadly missed by us all.

So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls.  This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.

[Nearly Sane]

I came upon this forum by tracking down a friend, Leonard James, with whom I had several years of exchanges on other forums.  Leonard was openly gay, and I was openly Christian.  In our exchanges we were able to acknowledge our differences and still build up a long lasting friendship.  Leonard was able to recognise that my motives in sharing my Christian faith were a sincere attempt to share what I considered to be the Good News with others in order for them to reap the ultimate reward of eternal salvation.  I failed to convince him but we were still able to share our views  in a way which enabled our friendship to grow.  Leonard sympathised with some of the aggressive responses I received and warned me in a PM that I would be on a rough ride in sharing my Christian views on this forum - how right he was!  Leonard is sadly missed by us all.

So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls.  This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.

And Christians who opposed mixed race marriages said the same.

[Alan Burns]

And Christians who opposed mixed race marriages said the same.

I am not aware of any such "Christians" - there is nothing in Christ's teaching to condone this.

[torridon]

So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls.  This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.

Your endeavour is irrational, however.  If God has got something against gay souls, then he wouldn't make them that way in the first place.  It is a hopeless mission to 'save' people from being what they are; no good can come of this.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not aware of any such "Christians" - there is nothing in Christ's teaching to condone this.

Haven't seen a no true Scotsman fallacy so perfectly done for a while.

[Gordon]

A feel sure that Leonard is sadly missed by us all.

On that point we are agreed!

[Aruntraveller]

This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.

What do you consider is for the ultimate good of homosexuals?

PS I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but we know all about the paving involved and where it leads.

[Alan Burns]

Your endeavour is irrational, however.  If God has got something against gay souls, then he wouldn't make them that way in the first place.  It is a hopeless mission to 'save' people from being what they are; no good can come of this.

We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.  If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

[Aruntraveller]

he reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin

gay people can get married now. Hadn't you heard?

[Sriram]

Personally I think too much is being made of homosexuality. As far as I am concerned...its neither here nor there.  I am a Hindu and we don't have any specific opinion on homosexuals. Life is about karma (action) and its consequences....and I accept that. 

As far as sin and natural order is concerned we have to look at it only from a human angle. Sin is specific to humans. Animals do not sin. Sin comes in only if we can control and regulate our thoughts and actions but we choose not to.

If we keep justifying our actions in terms of animal life we will not remain civilized let along progress spiritually. That is what I meant by referring to cannibalism,  killing rivals, killing babies, eating offspring etc.

[torridon]

We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.  If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

A loving God would not lead us into temptation in the first place.  Is the father who tries to lure his son into a life of crime being a good father ?