Christianity's views on violent games?

[QUOTE="123625"]Christianity has no view on the subject, as simple as that.buldog300

but they do have a stance for morality, as being the salt of the earth (perserving it), and if somethnig is immoral, it is our job to say it's not right.

Why do people think that because video games didn't exist back then, the bible doesn't have a stance? Video games are a form of amusement, and they are also a way to get a message across. The bible has plenty of things to say about methods of getting messages across and amusement.Like I said, technology develops, but sins never change.

Because the bible doesn't have a stance on what type of entertainment to enjoy or watch. The bible restricts certain sinful things, because it is more concerned on how we live, not how we do specific things like what we should watch or enjoy.

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure they didn't maul themselves. >____>

They knew what they were doing, but acted like idiots in doing it, thus getting themselves killed. . .they didn't do it to themselves, but they caused it to happen to themselves.

And according to that article you gave, the event took place around a 'cult city'. Which means the perpetrators quite possibly did not believe that Elisha's God even existed.

There are Jewish cults, and for the third time, that wouldn't excuse them. If I insulted an Anglican Bishop in the tenth century, for example, do you think I would have just been given a slap on the wrist since I'm not Anglican?

Now that sounds like moral relativism to me. *eyes Theokhoth suspiciously*

No, you and I just have different ideas as to what morality is. That's not relativism .>_>_>_>_>_>

Oh, I'm not saying that they had an excuse - what they did was undoutedly wrong. But God's response makes a mockery of any notion of proportionate punishment.

That depends on how you look at it. Wouldn't an insult to God's prophet be an insult to God, and wouldn't an insult to God be a catastrophic insult?

So morality is defined by culture?

Law is. A person's belief partly is.

Um... part of it. >__>

*Hits you with sandal* Bad llama! :x

When did I say it was relevant?

You certainly made a big fuss over the "fact" that they were little children.:|

And in answer to your question, which I assumed it to be rhetorical, no.

Ooh, do sometime. It's so much fun, and you understand this whole "ancient culture differences" thing so much better.

It just gives an example of how it's used to refer to an older person. Words can have more than one meaning, you know. >__>

Are there any examples of it being used for younger people?

Funky_Llama

BTW, WEEE RAINBOWPOST

The christians I know don't really have a problem with it. Seriously though, if the Bible were a video game, it would be rated AO.

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yes cause 2 stories with the same characters are exactly the same :roll:Funky_Llama

Like I said, god expects more of his chosen people. Lenience, in any form, is why there were multiple gods at the time, and why there are atheists such as yourself now. If Elisha hadn't dealt with them so severely, then the rest would continue to disbelieve him, and sin. Elisha came among them to get the jewish nation back on the path of righteousness, and you can't do that by being weak. Your kind says it's open minded, but throw in a different set of beliefs and you turn into this, a group of eye rolling people who thinks that the bible should be discredited because you don't like whats in it.

You realize we've kind veered away from the original point of this topic, right?

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="123625"]Christianity has no view on the subject, as simple as that.123625

but they do have a stance for morality, as being the salt of the earth (perserving it), and if somethnig is immoral, it is our job to say it's not right.

Why do people think that because video games didn't exist back then, the bible doesn't have a stance? Video games are a form of amusement, and they are also a way to get a message across. The bible has plenty of things to say about methods of getting messages across and amusement.Like I said, technology develops, but sins never change.

Because the bible doesn't have a stance on what type of entertainment to enjoy or watch. The bible restricts certain sinful things, because it is more concerned on how we live, not how we do specific things like what we should watch or enjoy.

That's not entirely true, otherwise prostitutes would be ok, but I digress. I didn't say video games were wrong, I'm just saying the morals many teach affect, as you put it, how we live. We should always be allowed to enjoy video games, but no one shouldgarner their morals from it.

Seriously though, if the Bible were a video game, it would be rated AO.

AwakenedMaster

O rly?

[QUOTE="AwakenedMaster"]

Seriously though, if the Bible were a video game, it would be rated AO.

Theokhoth

O rly?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure they didn't maul themselves. >____>

They knew what they were doing, but acted like idiots in doing it, thus getting themselves killed. . .they didn't do it to themselves, but they caused it to happen to themselves.

Dear God, I can hardly see the font colour you've used *squints*
Anyway, this is like me chasing you into an alleyway and murdering you, and then suggesting that it's your fault for being stupid enough to flee down the alleyway. >_>

And according to that article you gave, the event took place around a 'cult city'. Which means the perpetrators quite possibly did not believe that Elisha's God even existed.

There are Jewish cults, and for the third time, that wouldn't excuse them. If I insulted an Anglican Bishop in the tenth century, for example, do you think I would have just been given a slap on the wrist since I'm not Anglican?

How do you know they were Jewish cults? Anyway, the nature of your hypothetical punishment by a bunch of witch-dunking morons has no bearing of the morality of it.

Now that sounds like moral relativism to me. *eyes Theokhoth suspiciously*

No, you and I just have different ideas as to what morality is. That's not relativism .>_>_>_>_>_>

You appear to be suggesting that morality changes over time. Which is moral relativism.

Oh, I'm not saying that they had an excuse - what they did was undoutedly wrong. But God's response makes a mockery of any notion of proportionate punishment.

That depends on how you look at it. Wouldn't an insult to God's prophet be an insult to God, and wouldn't an insult to God be a catastrophic insult?

No, it wouldn't. It would be an insult to God's prophet and nothing more.

So morality is defined by culture?

Law is. A person's belief partly is.

You didn't answer my question. :x

Um... part of it. >__>

*Hits you with sandal* Bad llama! :x

But it was a boring article, and my toast popped up while I was reading it! :cry:

When did I say it was relevant?

You certainly made a big fuss over the "fact" that they were little children.:|

No I didn't. I just used 'children' instead of 'people' in my responses.

And in answer to your question, which I assumed it to be rhetorical, no.

Ooh, do sometime. It's so much fun, and you understand this whole "ancient culture differences" thing so much better.

Culture isn't what is being debated here. Morality is.

It just gives an example of how it's used to refer to an older person. Words can have more than one meaning, you know. >__>

Are there any examples of it being used for younger people?

I don't know. But the burden of proof is on you to prove that - despite its possible translations which suggest otherwise -it cannot refer to children.

Theokhoth

Is it just me, or is the brightly colored wall of text a little frightening?AwakenedMaster

the second one, yes. I don't think I can read it.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="123625"]Christianity has no view on the subject, as simple as that.123625

but they do have a stance for morality, as being the salt of the earth (perserving it), and if somethnig is immoral, it is our job to say it's not right.

Why do people think that because video games didn't exist back then, the bible doesn't have a stance? Video games are a form of amusement, and they are also a way to get a message across. The bible has plenty of things to say about methods of getting messages across and amusement.Like I said, technology develops, but sins never change.

Because the bible doesn't have a stance on what type of entertainment to enjoy or watch. The bible restricts certain sinful things, because it is more concerned on how we live, not how we do specific things like what we should watch or enjoy.

Well, gotta go run some errands. Apparently Mom can't buy her own damn Christmas lights.:xTheokhoth

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]Don't patronize me when you were the one who misunderstood my point.

It's out of context because foxhound_fox took the Old Testament out of the context of the whole Bible and tried to claim that Christianity being anti-violent is hypocritical. In the context of the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, Christianity in no way condones violence. That's why his point is invalid.

foxhound_fox

Like LJ said, it's the history of God's interactions and covenants with mankind. Also, the 10 commandments still apply, as does everything else that wasn't talked about in the New Testament. For example, homosexuality is still immoral as the Old Testament says, but we don't go around stoning gays and prostitutes anymore because that is also immoral according to the New Testament.

Also, you have to keep in mind that times were a lot different before Jesus came to institute the Sacraments. People did not receive the Holy Spirit and they were very uncivilized, so God had to rule with a strong hand. God knew that nobody would be able to follow the rules of the New Testament back in those days, so He had to make them appropriate to the times - that's why you saw things like "an eye for an eye" and simple commands like "thou shall not murder" or "commit adultery."

However, that was not His intention. When Jesus came, He completed the rules. So now we go by Matthew 5 which says things like

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery'
28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

and

31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

and

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

and

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Therefore, to claim that Christianity is hypocritical in being against violence because it contains stories of violence in the past is taking those stories completely out of the context of the Bible. Christianity is, in fact, all about love. Loving God, and then loving all the people around you and yourself too.

Just because some people may still incorrectly follow those rules doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong or promotes bad things - it just means that those people are wrong.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Well, gotta go run some errands. Apparently Mom can't buy her own damn Christmas lights.:xFunky_Llama

I've never seen a brown sunset...

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Well, gotta go run some errands. Apparently Mom can't buy her own damn Christmas lights.:xbuldog300

I've never seen a brown sunset...

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Aww, and the argument was taking on such a lovely sunset hue. :(Funky_Llama

I've never seen a brown sunset...

lol. But it's been fun. Cya.

For example, homosexuality is still immoral as the Old Testament says

abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

I've never seen a brown sunset...

buldog300

lol. But it's been fun. Cya.

For example, homosexuality is still immoral as the Old Testament says

Wait, so if we play a game containing porn (u know that 3d sex thing), Bible is okay with it?MFaraz_Hayat

I would think not. I simply maintain that the bible doesn't mention what we should watch or use for entertainment. Though I don't think God would approve of such games >_>

For example, homosexuality is still immoral as the Old Testament says

[Exactly what I said. If it's immoral, prove it. And as for why I didn't respond to the rest of your post, that would be because I thought that most of it was a reasonable explanation. A few statements I disagreed with, but I'd rather not nitpick.Funky_Llama

I'm pretty sure a verse in Deuteronomy calls it an abomination.

They claim to hate it but I've been into countless Christian Halo, COD4, and CSS serversToriko42

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][Exactly what I said. If it's immoral, prove it. And as for why I didn't respond to the rest of your post, that would be because I thought that most of it was a reasonable explanation. A few statements I disagreed with, but I'd rather not nitpick.123625

I'm pretty sure a verse in Deuteronomy calls it an abomination.

CHILDISH HUMOR DERIVED FROM AN IRRELEVENT BIBLICAL QUOTE TIME:

Song of Solomon 7:6-8 NLT

And I quote:

Oh, how beautiful you are! How pleasing, my love, how full of delights!
You are slender like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters of fruit.
I said, "I will climb the palm tree and take hold of its fruit."

/endofuselessposttime

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Prove it.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"] What do you mean prove it? Also, why aren't you responding the rest of my post? :?abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Exactly what I said. If it's immoral, prove it. And as for why I didn't respond to the rest of your post, that would be because I thought that most of it was a reasonable explanation. A few statements I disagreed with, but I'd rather not nitpick.Funky_Llama

Prove this it isn't voluntary.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"] First of all, there is no such thing as "being born gay There's no valid proof of that and there never will be. Secondly, it goes completely against how God intended it to be. Choosing to live your life against what God said and how God intended it to be is immoral. That's why you need a man and a woman to have a child. It's similar to getting a "sex change" - you're basically saying that you dislike the way God made you and want to be different. God never made anyone homosexual, so deciding to go against that and be gay is insulting to God and thus immoral, as is getting a sex change or trying to taint/change your body in some other major way.abdelmessih101

Prove this it isn't voluntary.

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] To all three of your 'points': prove that homosexuality is voluntary.Funky_Llama

Prove this it isn't voluntary.

That pretty much says that while most people believe that sexual orientation is involuntary, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that is. People can pretty much convince themselves of almost anything - denial is a very powerful tool. Plus, there are many conditions that cause our brains to perceive something a certain way even though it isn't true - I'm not saying homosexuality is necessarily a disease, but something along the lines of the brain telling people that they're gay even though they aren't. There is no reason or evidence for me to believe that homosexuality is involuntary.

Once you convince yourself that you're gay you believe that you were always like that. Doesn't it seem odd that there are more gay people now than ever before. If homosexuality really is involuntary, I doubt that all these gay people now would just have lived their lives "in the closet." Now that society is more accepting of homosexuality, people will be more likely to convince themselves that it's normal and natural when it isn't.

If homosexuality was involuntary, it would've been around for a much longer time than it has been. There used to be feminine males and masculine females who were heterosexual and happy with it. Now those same people would probably consider themselves gay.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

Prove this it isn't voluntary.

abdelmessih101

That pretty much says that while most people believe that sexual orientation is involuntary, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that is. People can pretty much convince themselves of almost anything - denial is a very powerful tool. Plus, there are many conditions that cause our brains to perceive something a certain way even though it isn't true - I'm not saying homosexuality is necessarily a disease, but something along the lines of the brain telling people that they're gay even though they aren't. There is no reason or evidence for me to believe that homosexuality is involuntary.

Once you convince yourself that you're gay you believe that you were always like that. Doesn't it seem odd that there are more gay people now than ever before. If homosexuality really is involuntary, I doubt that all these gay people now would just have lived their lives "in the closet." Now that society is more accepting of homosexuality, people will be more likely to convince themselves that it's normal and natural when it isn't.

If homosexuality was involuntary, it would've been around for a much longer time than it has been. There used to be feminine males and masculine females who were heterosexual and happy with it. Now those same people would probably consider themselves gay.

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]As I said, burden of proof's on you. Otherwise, let's take a look at what the experts have to say. American Psychological Association: 'There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.' I'm waiting for the devastatingly effective evidence that will prove wrong the belief of pretty much every psychologist that sexuality is involuntary. And if it is voluntary... how do you go about choosing it?

Funky_Llama

That pretty much says that while most people believe that sexual orientation is involuntary, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that is. People can pretty much convince themselves of almost anything - denial is a very powerful tool. Plus, there are many conditions that cause our brains to perceive something a certain way even though it isn't true - I'm not saying homosexuality is necessarily a disease, but something along the lines of the brain telling people that they're gay even though they aren't. There is no reason or evidence for me to believe that homosexuality is involuntary.

Once you convince yourself that you're gay you believe that you were always like that. Doesn't it seem odd that there are more gay people now than ever before. If homosexuality really is involuntary, I doubt that all these gay people now would just have lived their lives "in the closet." Now that society is more accepting of homosexuality, people will be more likely to convince themselves that it's normal and natural when it isn't.

If homosexuality was involuntary, it would've been around for a much longer time than it has been. There used to be feminine males and masculine females who were heterosexual and happy with it. Now those same people would probably consider themselves gay.

No, I'm saying that it's possible to get a homosexual urge/temptation and not be gay A lot of people experience something like that during puberty and it doesn't mean they're gay Just because I may get the urge to have sex with someone other my wife if/when I get married doesn't mean that I'm an adulterer. Everyone gets tempted with one thing or another, and accepting that homosexual temptation can result in someone convincing himself that he's gay.

And the natural vs unnatural argument is relevant because people aren't born gay They can choose to succumb to a homosexual temptation and "become" gay (believe that they're gay However, that goes completely against the way God made it and said it should be, which makes it immoral.

What difference would it make, if you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, etc.? Most people recognize that a game is simply a game, just as a television show is a television show. Parents who don't allow their kids to watch certain things or play certain games nine times out of ten choose so not as a result of a religious intolerance but a parental intolerance for it.

I personally don't care. I'm a Christian and I play games like Halo 3 (violent), Grand Theft Auto (violent), Final Fantasy (witchcraft), and Spore (encourages evolution (I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe in theistic evolution)), but I recognize that these games are just that, GAMES. They have no bearing on my actions and no bearing on my thoughts, and anyone who tells you that GAMES influence the actions of others is a purveyor of pseudoscience and lies.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

That pretty much says that while most people believe that sexual orientation is involuntary, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that is. People can pretty much convince themselves of almost anything - denial is a very powerful tool. Plus, there are many conditions that cause our brains to perceive something a certain way even though it isn't true - I'm not saying homosexuality is necessarily a disease, but something along the lines of the brain telling people that they're gay even though they aren't. There is no reason or evidence for me to believe that homosexuality is involuntary.

Once you convince yourself that you're gay you believe that you were always like that. Doesn't it seem odd that there are more gay people now than ever before. If homosexuality really is involuntary, I doubt that all these gay people now would just have lived their lives "in the closet." Now that society is more accepting of homosexuality, people will be more likely to convince themselves that it's normal and natural when it isn't.

If homosexuality was involuntary, it would've been around for a much longer time than it has been. There used to be feminine males and masculine females who were heterosexual and happy with it. Now those same people would probably consider themselves gay.

abdelmessih101

No, I'm saying that it's possible to get a homosexual urge/temptation and not be gay A lot of people experience something like that during puberty and it doesn't mean they're gay Just because I may get the urge to have sex with someone other my wife if/when I get married doesn't mean that I'm an adulterer. Everyone gets tempted with one thing or another, and accepting that homosexual temptation can result in someone convincing himself that he's gay.

And the natural vs unnatural argument is relevant because people aren't born gay They can choose to succumb to a homosexual temptation and "become" gay (believe that they're gay However, that goes completely against the way God made it and said it should be, which makes it immoral.

Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Funky_Llama

It is as far as Jesus was concerned. . . .

Not an apt comparison at all. Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Homosexuality IS defined as attraction to those of the same sex. Neither are people born straight, for that matter... also, how do you think that God said it should be?Funky_Llama

Actually, homosexuality can be defined as either attraction to or sexual activity with members of the same gender. You have to designate which you refer to, although I'm fairly certain the former definition is what is being debated.

Well, technically people are born both straight and gay All animals are born with the basic instinct of reproduction, heterosexuality and homosexuality being two of the many derivatives thereof (other derivatives inclued pansexuality, asexuality, and bisexuality). Whether or not people choose heterosexuality or homosexuality is the question. It's kind of like shining a white light on a prism. The white light is the reproductive instinct, the different colors being the different spectrum of human sexuality. Both straightness and gayness derive from one point, thus it can be said humans are born as being completely, and yet not being, sexually orientated.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Theokhoth

It is as far as Jesus was concerned. . . .

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Not an apt comparison at all. Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Homosexuality IS defined as attraction to those of the same sex. Neither are people born straight, for that matter... also, how do you think that God said it should be?tycoonmike

Actually, homosexuality can be defined as either attraction to or sexual activity with members of the same gender. You have to designate which you refer to, although I'm fairly certain the former definition is what is being debated.

Well, technically people are born both straight and gay All animals are born with the basic instinct of reproduction, heterosexuality and homosexuality being two of the many derivatives thereof (other derivatives inclued pansexuality, asexuality, and bisexuality). Whether or not people choose heterosexuality or homosexuality is the question. It's kind of like shining a white light on a prism. The white light is the reproductive instinct, the different colors being the different spectrum of human sexuality. Both straightness and gayness derive from one point, thus it can be said humans are born as being completely, and yet not being, sexually orientated.

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]:lol: So... people are attracted to those of the same sex, but are somehow... not gay Um... riiiight. There are two entirely plausible explanations for there being more gay people than before: the first is that people have been in denial and/or in the closet - which I'm sure most people would do if they could be imprisoned or worse if they admitted it. The second is that homosexuality is a product of environment, and an environment more tolerant of it genuinely does lead to more homosexuality. Either way, your argument doesn't hold water. Um... homosexuality has been around for absolutely ages. :| Male apes have been screwing each other for millions of years... and if you want to restrict it to humans... well... there are Roman artifacts depicting gay sex. Oh, and as for the natural/unnatural thing - it's irrelevant.Funky_Llama

No, I'm saying that it's possible to get a homosexual urge/temptation and not be gay A lot of people experience something like that during puberty and it doesn't mean they're gay Just because I may get the urge to have sex with someone other my wife if/when I get married doesn't mean that I'm an adulterer. Everyone gets tempted with one thing or another, and accepting that homosexual temptation can result in someone convincing himself that he's gay.

And the natural vs unnatural argument is relevant because people aren't born gay They can choose to succumb to a homosexual temptation and "become" gay (believe that they're gay However, that goes completely against the way God made it and said it should be, which makes it immoral.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Not an apt comparison at all. Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Homosexuality IS defined as attraction to those of the same sex. Neither are people born straight, for that matter... also, how do you think that God said it should be?Funky_Llama

Actually, homosexuality can be defined as either attraction to or sexual activity with members of the same gender. You have to designate which you refer to, although I'm fairly certain the former definition is what is being debated.

Well, technically people are born both straight and gay All animals are born with the basic instinct of reproduction, heterosexuality and homosexuality being two of the many derivatives thereof (other derivatives inclued pansexuality, asexuality, and bisexuality). Whether or not people choose heterosexuality or homosexuality is the question. It's kind of like shining a white light on a prism. The white light is the reproductive instinct, the different colors being the different spectrum of human sexuality. Both straightness and gayness derive from one point, thus it can be said humans are born as being completely, and yet not being, sexually orientated.

If you're talking libido, I doubt it. That doesn't stop said children to grow into sex maniacs, though. All animals, when born, have the instinct of reproduction driven into their subconscious as a result of millions of years of evolution and survival.

Then again, I don't claim to be an expert of human growth, physiology, or genetics, so take what you will from what I say at your own risk.

He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." And as others said, adultery IS defined as lusting for another woman. But if some attractive woman tempts me when I'm married, I'm not automatically an adulterer. If I give in and lust for her, or if I don't resist the temptation, then I have committed adultery.abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

No, I'm saying that it's possible to get a homosexual urge/temptation and not be gay A lot of people experience something like that during puberty and it doesn't mean they're gay Just because I may get the urge to have sex with someone other my wife if/when I get married doesn't mean that I'm an adulterer. Everyone gets tempted with one thing or another, and accepting that homosexual temptation can result in someone convincing himself that he's gay.

And the natural vs unnatural argument is relevant because people aren't born gay They can choose to succumb to a homosexual temptation and "become" gay (believe that they're gay However, that goes completely against the way God made it and said it should be, which makes it immoral.

abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." And as others said, adultery IS defined as lusting for another woman. But if some attractive woman tempts me when I'm married, I'm not automatically an adulterer. If I give in and lust for her, or if I don't resist the temptation, then I have committed adultery.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Not an apt comparison at all. Adultery is not defined as attraction to those other than your wife. Homosexuality IS defined as attraction to those of the same sex. Neither are people born straight, for that matter... also, how do you think that God said it should be?Funky_Llama

And no, it's not sinful to not get married. That's why there are monks. But if you do want to have to sex, you have to get married first, and if you want to get married, then it can only be to someone of the opposite sex.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"] He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." And as others said, adultery IS defined as lusting for another woman. But if some attractive woman tempts me when I'm married, I'm not automatically an adulterer. If I give in and lust for her, or if I don't resist the temptation, then I have committed adultery.abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"] He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." And as others said, adultery IS defined as lusting for another woman. But if some attractive woman tempts me when I'm married, I'm not automatically an adulterer. If I give in and lust for her, or if I don't resist the temptation, then I have committed adultery.abdelmessih101

And no, it's not sinful to not get married. That's why there are monks. But if you do want to have to sex, you have to get married first, and if you want to get married, then it can only be to someone of the opposite sex.

So it's sinful not to marry someone of the opposite sex? As for the definition of adultery, no it is not. Adultery is sex outside of marriage. Let's look at some definitions, shall we? Dictionary.com: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. WordNet 3.0, Princeton University: extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband I think there's something of a concensus there. ;)Funky_Llama

And no, it's not sinful to not get married. That's why there are monks. But if you do want to have to sex, you have to get married first, and if you want to get married, then it can only be to someone of the opposite sex.