God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Subduction Zone]

Ok maybe you are right. But where does this hate originate from? These are people loving other people and some people finding reasons to hate them or being instructed to hate them. Books are not holy or magical. They are books.

I agree, books are books. I think that many of them are probably latent homosexuals, an idea supported by several studies. Homophobia is not a fear of homosexuals, it is a fear of being a homosexual. They use the teaching of books, some of the verses coming from what were probably latent homosexuals that wrote them, as an excuse. Part of it is the environment we were brought up in. I used to oppose gay marriage, or more appropriately marriage equality, until I thought it through. At that time a frequent complaint was the promiscuity of gay men. It made no sense to complain about their promiscuity and to deny them sense of permanence.

 

[Vaderecta]

I agree, books are books. I think that many of them are probably latent homosexuals, an idea supported by several studies. Homophobia is not a fear of homosexuals, it is a fear of being a homosexual. They use the teaching of books, some of the verses coming from what were probably latent homosexuals that wrote them, as an excuse. Part of it is the environment we were brought up in. I used to oppose gay marriage, or more appropriately marriage equality, until I thought it through. At that time a frequent complaint was the promiscuity of gay men. It made no sense to complain about their promiscuity and to deny them sense of permanence.

Cheers mate! (For you american blokes that means I agree with him (or her) and think he or she did a great job in their retort and have no other response besides good show! Or cool! or whatever floats your boat... I am more comfortable with just cheers and then mate as in good post and we seem like kindred spirits... hence cheers and mate... this seems corny, just remember in the future when I say Cheers, Mate its not sarcastic, Its just me saying... cool, we are on the same page, etc etc)

 

[Skwim]

However some people do.

So what? What does that have to do with how I regard religion?

.

 

[Vaderecta]

So what? What does that have to do with how I regard religion?

.

That was a cool capital I. I don't think it does. If you are the type of person that considers their existence as something you have and something that only applies or effects you and if it doesnt then it doesn't matter then you are not really obligated to care about how other people see the world. Go about your day and do what you do. I am not religious but recogize that value religion has for some people and respect it. You are not obligated to do the same. Regard religion however you chose.

 

[Skwim]

That was a cool capital I. I don't think it does.

Then when you want to expound on an issue please don't feel it's necessary to involve me in it.

.



.

 

[Vaderecta]

Then when you want to expound on an issue please don't feel it's necessary to involve me in it.
.

I was responding to your nonsensical argument to begin with.

You can feel however you want about however people believe and its not a reflection of who you are? It is a reflection. That is why I asked if you are anti-religious and basically are you against anyone who has some belief you disagree with? It's a free country.

 

[Skwim]

I was responding to your nonsensical argument to begin with.

Now you have me puzzled. Just what argument did I make?

.

 

[Vaderecta]

Now you have me puzzled. Just what argument did I make?

.

A lazy argument.

 

[Skwim]

A lazy argument.

Apparently you're unable to tell a statement of fact from an opinion from an argument.

Have a good day.

 

[pearl]

You make it sound as if there is only one thing god finds to be an abomination, idolatry, when we know darn well he also regards male homosexual sex to be an abomination.

Romans 1:18

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. As a result, they have no excuse; they became fools

for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen

 

[Prestor John]

I buy this under one condition, and that's that you accept the other sins presented under the same context.

For example, the Torah also speaks of eating unclean meats as "an abomination." Can you accept that eating pork and shellfish is for the Jew an abomination unto God?

And in the New Testament, homosexuality is listed right next to lying. Do you agree that lying is just as evil as homosexuality? Do you really?

If you can answer yes to those two questions, then you are being Biblically consistant. If you can't, then you are not really going by the Bible. You are simply being a homophobe using the Bible to conveniently justify your views.

I disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

The Law of Moses was not destroyed or abolished when the Lord Jesus Christ brought the Higher Law.

The Law still exists, only the way that they are perceived and observed have changed.

For example, when the woman caught in adultery was brought before Christ, He said the famous line about those without sin casting the first stone.

Many people interpret this to mean that we should not judge others or that the Law of Moses was no more, however that is not what Christ said at all.

"Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:10-11)

The Lord Jesus Christ expressly claimed that the woman had committed sin with her adultery (thus His admonition for her to sin no more), therefore a judgment had been made.

However, according to the Higher Law, He would reserve condemnation for a later time, not judgment.

Now, take a person who had committed homosexual acts and place them in the stead of this woman, the Lord Jesus Christ would have commanded them to no longer sin (making a judgment), but He would not condemn them.

The Law concerning the sin of homosexuality remains unchanged. It is sinful and we should avoid it.

However, how Man is to perceive and observe it has changed.

Instead of condemning those who commit sin, we have been instructed to call everyone to repent, or in other words, change their sinful behavior.

Now, regarding the partaking of "unclean" meats, this was placed in the Law of Moses as sort of an object lesson or teaching aide for the ancient Israelites to not mingle with (partake of) the Gentiles.

The instruction Peter received in his dream recorded in the Book of Acts was that there was no more "unclean" meat, or rather, the Gentiles were now ready to receive the Word.

Therefore, there is no reason to abstain from eating those "unclean" meats because the Lord has declared that all the world should receive His Word.

Finally, there is no reason to assume that lying is just as sinful as sexual sin, although both should be avoided because all sin should be avoided.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

The Law of Moses was not destroyed or abolished when the Lord Jesus Christ brought the Higher Law.

The Law still exists, only the way that they are perceived and observed have changed.

For example, when the woman caught in adultery was brought before Christ, He said the famous line about those without sin casting the first stone.

Many people interpret this to mean that we should not judge others or that the Law of Moses was no more, however that is not what Christ said at all.

"Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:10-11)

The Lord Jesus Christ expressly claimed that the woman had committed sin with her adultery (thus His admonition for her to sin no more), therefore a judgment had been made.

However, according to the Higher Law, He would reserve condemnation for a later time, not judgment.

Now, take a person who had committed homosexual acts and place them in the stead of this woman, the Lord Jesus Christ would have commanded them to no longer sin (making a judgment), but He would not condemn them.

The Law concerning the sin of homosexuality remains unchanged. It is sinful and we should avoid it.

However, how Man is to perceive and observe it has changed.

Instead of condemning those who commit sin, we have been instructed to call everyone to repent, or in other words, change their sinful behavior.

Now, regarding the partaking of "unclean" meats, this was placed in the Law of Moses as sort of an object lesson or teaching aide for the ancient Israelites to not mingle with (partake of) the Gentiles.

The instruction Peter received in his dream recorded in the Book of Acts was that there was no more "unclean" meat, or rather, the Gentiles were now ready to receive the Word.

Therefore, there is no reason to abstain from eating those "unclean" meats because the Lord has declared that all the world should receive His Word.

Finally, there is no reason to assume that lying is just as sinful as sexual sin, although both should be avoided because all sin should be avoided.

You've really gone off on a wild goose chase. If you check above, you'll see that I'm Jewish, so I certainly don't believe that the Law has passed away. I simply believe it applies to Jews and not Gentiles.

So again, I ask you, since Jews eating unclean meats is ALSO called an abomination, what do you have to say? It is obvious that this is put on the same level as sodomy. I agree with you that the laws of kashrut were to limit socialization and ultimately intermarriage between the Children of Israel and Gentiles. So? Irrelevant. It is STILL put on the same level as Sodomy.

 

[Prestor John]

You've really gone off on a wild goose chase. If you check above, you'll see that I'm Jewish, so I certainly don't believe that the Law has passed away. I simply believe it applies to Jews and not Gentiles.

So again, I ask you, since Jews eating unclean meats is ALSO called an abomination, what do you have to say? It is obvious that this is put on the same level as sodomy. I agree with you that the laws of kashrut were to limit socialization and ultimately intermarriage between the Children of Israel and Gentiles. So? Irrelevant. It is STILL put on the same level as Sodomy.

According to the Law of Moses, did those that partook of unclean meats receive the same punishment as those who engaged in homosexual behavior?

 

[Vaderecta]

Then when you want to expound on an issue please don't feel it's necessary to involve me in it.
.

This is like a battle for you I guess. You say whatever it takes to win an argument and then sign out. I was referencing an earlier post where I used the word lazy.

People place higher intrinsic value on their religious beliefs then their sports beliefs because it comes up so often. Maybe some dude was at a funeral and it was catholic and now you are trying to talk them out of their catholic belief. Good luck considering they just had this powerful catholic experience with a dead relative.

People are not creatures of logic. Computers might be. But people are real and have feelings and experiences and they are all not as a smart as each other. They have their own experiences and those experiences have meaning intrinsic to who they are.

Its not that they aren't thinking. Its that they share the same dna that made all people possible.

We are people. Some are muslims, some are catholic, jews, atheists, democrats, Gun lovers, etc. You can't pivot on the one thing they believe that you do not to caterogize them as inferior. Its why I asked are you anti-religious as that seems to ruffle you feathers the most. Some people want a loaded sniper rifle hanging above their head and a loaded colt 45 in their night stand and worship the almighty Jehovah. That is not enough information for you to definitively judge them. We are all humans mate. (Yep, even you)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

According to the Law of Moses, did those that partook of unclean meats receive the same punishment as those who engaged in homosexual behavior?

While the punishment for eating unclean meats is not stipulated in Torah, similar sins, such as the eating of blood or the fat from the organs carries the punishment of KARET. The meaning of karet is unclear: we are unsure whether it means permanent banishment or capital punishment. Generally speaking, rabbis became more lenient with punishment as time went on. Captital punishment was almost never given out. The punishment according to the Talmud for eating unclean meat of a size greater than an olive was 39 lashes.

 

[Prestor John]

While the punishment for eating unclean meats is not stipulated in Torah, similar sins, such as the eating of blood or the fat from the organs carries the punishment of KARET. The meaning of karet is unclear: we are unsure whether it means permanent banishment or capital punishment. Generally speaking, rabbis became more lenient with punishment as time went on. Captital punishment was almost never given out. The punishment according to the Talmud for eating unclean meat of a size greater than an olive was 39 lashes.

I always understood that karet or the "cutting off" to be of a spiritual nature, such as not being entitled to certain blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant.

Anyways, why do you think the Lord commanded different punishments for these violations when both of them were referred to as "abominations"?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I always understood that karet or the "cutting off" to be of a spiritual nature, such as not being entitled to certain blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant.

Anyways, why do you think the Lord commanded different punishments for these violations when both of them were referred to as "abominations"?

I have no idea. But it is interesting that in all cases they were virtually as extreme.

 

[Shantanu]

According to many Christians god doesn't condemn romantic attraction or sexual attraction between members of the same sex; however, physically acting on that attraction is a huge No-no, even an abomination worthy of the death penalty.

So just what is it about touching pee pees that is so much worse than simply wanting to? What are the inherent underpinnings of this physical transgression that sets it apart from the attraction itself and make it worthy of such severe condemnation?

Physically expressing homosexual attraction is far worse than just than just the attraction because_______________fill in the blank______________ (and no "because the Bible tells me so" kinds of answers please).


.

I asked God about this: He frowned at homosexuality and I am not a Christian but a Hindu if of any religion. I never used to care about what people did in their private lives and this knowledge took me not only by surprise but actually took me to distrust God. Now that I am God, I see that the only thing that matters is how to survive in the world of humanity. That means staying out of harms way. I would therefore not like to associate with homosexuals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I asked God about this: He frowned at homosexuality and I am not a Christian but a Hindu if of any religion. I never used to care about what people did in their private lives and this knowledge took me not only by surprise but actually took me to distrust God. Now that I am God, I see that the only thing that matters is how to survive in the world of humanity. That means staying out of harms way. I would therefore not like to associate with homosexuals.

What the hell? How does "associating" with gays harm you in any way? That's illogical and irrational.

 

[Shantanu]

What the hell? How does "associating" with gays harm you in any way? That's illogical and irrational.

They may molest me the wrong way, and disturb my peace of mind by causing confusion within me as to who I am.