• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

That Whole Homosexual--Sin Thing

sooda

Veteran Member
The story goes first born sons. You added the rest or they are different stories. However the pyramids were built with slave labour, the army's survived to fight, rival nations fought and lost and won. What point were you making?

Nope. The Pyramids were built by Egyptians. Workers came and went seasonally when the Nile flooded and they could plant.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Now if you want to bring science into the debate to prove your claim. You would have to show us the methods you used to measure or weigh sin, the different types, and a control. The show us that homosexuality is less sinful because it weighs less, or has less matter etc.

Which is not possible at this time.

So other than that all you can do is argue verses or opinion.

Lots and lots of death penalty sins in the OT.

Death penalty sins in the Old Testament - JesusAlive.cc
jesusalive.cc/ques360.htm
Today, there is generally only one crime that calls for the death penalty: murder. However, in the Old Testament I can find 28 crimes/sins in which God called for death. These range from things which are obviously serious (i.e. murder or kidnapping) to things that seem shocking to most of us (i.e. a disobedient child or having sex before marriage).
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
a mention in scripture is where the sacred seed of life is deposited. Not exactly a respectful repository. o_O

Well, the source and the intended repository are not very respectful either, considering that they share their function with the elimination of liquid leftovers. Imagine, urine and souls coming from the same place.

Another case of SD, maybe?

Ciao

- viole
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
God would be a crazy hypocrite, if it existed. It got supposedly got Mary pregnant before she married Joseph!

As the Creator of life, God did not use sex to transmit the life of his son into the womb of a human woman any more than an doctor has sex with a woman by introducing a fertilized egg through IVF.

There is nothing wrong with having sex before marriage if you are in an adult relationship, provided you take proper precautions.

Unless you are a Christian....if you are not a Christian then you have no basis to follow the Bioble's teachings.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Well, the source and the intended repository are not very respectful either, considering that they share their function with the elimination of liquid leftovers. Imagine, urine and souls coming from the same place.

Another case of SD, maybe?

Perhaps a lesson in female anatomy might be in order....? :facepalm:
 

sooda

Veteran Member
This is basically a moral issue.

In God's law no one was entitled to sex unless they were lawfully (scripturally) married. Same sex couples, though pushing for recognition of their "marriage", might be acceptable according to the law of the land, but will never reach legitimate marriage status with God who formed "male and female" and said "what God has yoked together, let no man put apart". (Matthew 19:4-6)

Illicit sex is what is wrong, no matter the gender. But what makes male homosexual sex especially rate a mention in scripture is where the sacred seed of life is deposited. Not exactly a respectful repository. o_O

Death penalty for Onan because he didn't want a Levirite marriage.

What exactly was the sin of Onan? – The Straight Dope
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan
May 03, 2005 · Rabbis and early Christian fathers sought other explanations for Onan’s sin, focusing more on the sexual act itself, the spilling of the seed. Jews and Christians adopted sharply different interpretations. The rabbis interpreted Onan’s transgression as birth control through coitus interruptus.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Death penalty for Onan because he didn't want a Levirite marriage.

What exactly was the sin of Onan? – The Straight Dope
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan
May 03, 2005 · Rabbis and early Christian fathers sought other explanations for Onan’s sin, focusing more on the sexual act itself, the spilling of the seed. Jews and Christians adopted sharply different interpretations. The rabbis interpreted Onan’s transgression as birth control through coitus interruptus.

That is how we understand it....

"A son of Judah, his second by the Canaanite daughter of Shua. (Ge 38:2-4; 1Ch 2:3) After Onan’s childless older brother Er was put to death by Jehovah for wrongdoing, Onan was told by Judah to perform brother-in-law marriage with Er’s widow Tamar. If a son was produced, he would not be the founder of Onan’s family, and the firstborn’s inheritance would belong to him as an heir to Er; whereas if no heir came, Onan would get the inheritance for himself. When Onan had relations with Tamar, he “wasted his semen on the earth” instead of giving it to her. This was not an act of masturbation on the part of Onan, for the account says “when he did have relations with his brother’s wife” he spilled his semen. Apparently it was a case of “coitus interruptus,” in which Onan purposely prevented ejaculation of his semen into Tamar’s genital tract. For his disobedience to his father, his covetousness, and his sin against the divine arrangement of marriage, not for self-abuse, Onan, himself also childless, was put to death by Jehovah.—Ge 38:6-10; 46:12; Nu 26:19."

Onan — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
As the Creator of life, God did not use sex to transmit the life of his son into the womb of a human woman any more than an doctor has sex with a woman by introducing a fertilized egg through IVF.



Unless you are a Christian....if you are not a Christian then you have no basis to follow the Bioble's teachings.

Some of the things in the Bible are very wrong indeed and should not be followed. It is wise to discover if you and your partner are compatible before you marry, including having a sexual relationship. I was a Christian of the born again stupidity as a young person as was my husband, it didn't stop us consummating our relationship before marriage. Our three daughters are Christians, the two married ones lived with their partners for a couple of years before marriage with our blessing. They have been married 21 and 19 years, which isn't bad going these days. My husband and I will have been married for 50 years in August.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Only quoting your Bible.

Leviticus 18:22
22 ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

.

1) notice it didn't say the man is detestable.

2)

What is so wrong about an act, which only brings pleasure and hurts no one,

Only quoting you. :)

3) Do you even know what the Kingdom of God is?:rolleyes:
 

sooda

Veteran Member
1) notice it didn't say the man is detestable.

2)



Only quoting you. :)

3) Do you even know what the Kingdom of God is?:rolleyes:


“The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
“The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).
Romans 14:17 The Passion Translation (TPT)
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of rules about food and drink, but is in the realm of the Holy Spirit, filled with righteousness, peace, and joy.

And that includes here on the earth.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Romans 14:17 The Passion Translation (TPT)
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of rules about food and drink, but is in the realm of the Holy Spirit, filled with righteousness, peace, and joy.

And that includes here on the earth.

Do you think the New Jerusalem is a physical place?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Well, I'm not really looking for an argument as much as I am a reason, but go ahead. What's your argument?
OK. So. I love my dog, right? Only want what's best for him and all that. Now, imagine He finds a big block of chocolate. It screams out to his every sense that he should eat it, all of it, right now. There is no possible way to convince him it is wrong or a bad idea for him to eat it. He simply cannot comprehend the reasons I would want to stop him eating it, yet, if i see him go for it, I would try very hard to stop him from eating it, to the point of physical restraint, even manually remvoving it from him. He will have not the slightest comprehension of why I did what I did, but, fundamentally, he defers to me and follows my lead on the matter.

I suspect God's reasons for forbidding a few things, including homosexual activity,are sort of like that.

Told you you wouldn't like it, but you asked.

Couple of quick caveats: no, I am not likening homosexual people to dogs. In this analogy I am only using canine brain power vs. human to stand in for the gulf between ALL human comprehension and God. Second, while I, personally, believe God doesn't approve of homosexual activity, and justify that belief with the above argument, in no way do I expect any homosexual person to agree with me if they don't find my argument compelling (and I certainly can see why they wouldn't, "we're not smart enough to get it" wouldn't satisfy most people, even if true), nor do I believe my argument is grounds for any form of temporal discrimination against gay people. I don't think my personal faith based beliefs should compel anyone to do or believe anything. If a homosexual person asks my opinion, I'll give it, but I fully recognise it as just that, an opinion.

But isn't she a lesbian to begin with?

.
who?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
it causes the spread of HIV.

God is all knowing
All wise and knew that homosexual sex is dirty and a petri dish of many problems

How common is HIV in the Philippines?
Current status. The Philippines is a low-HIV-prevalence country, with less than 0.1 percent of the adult population estimated to be HIV-positive, but the rate of increase in infections is one of the highest. ... The infection rate among men having sex with men has multiplied 10 times from 2010 to 2015.

HIV/AIDS in the Philippines - Wikipedia

doh-20170801-2_05B928D437424B6AA0F14E6A6DAF5F95.jpg

A total of 38 cases involved minors under 15 years old. With a population of more than 100 million, the number of HIV cases in the Philippines remains low. But in terms of percentage increase, the UN said in August 2017 the country has the fastest growing HIV epidemic in the Asia-Pacific region in recent years.Feb 19, 2018
Philippines: HIV cases up 3,147 percent in 10 years | News
View attachment 29058



PHILIPPINES ADDRESSES RISING TREND IN NEW HIV INFECTIONS

A UNAIDS Report on the global HIV epidemic states that the number of new infections in the Philippines has more than doubled in the past six (6) years from an estimated 4,300 in 2010 to an estimated 10,500 in 2016. The Philippines has become the country with the fastest growing HIV epidemic in Asia and the Pacific, and has become one of eight countries that account for more than 85% of new HIV infections in the region.

While the country has the fastest growing epidemic in terms of percentage increase, the number of new infections in the Philippines is not as high as several countries in the region which are estimated to have tens of thousands of new infections annually.

“The Philippines has a small window of opportunity to act now and stop a major HIV epidemic from taking hold,” said Eamonn Murphy, Director UNAIDS Regional Support Team for Asia-Pacific. “If HIV programming is re-directed to focus on the people most at risk and where they are located, I’m sure the country can not only return to a stable situation but even end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030.”

The Philippines has retooled its program to expand HIV services for males who have sex with males and transgender women and has opened clinics that cater specifically to their needs in urban areas, where the risk of HIV is higher. The strategy is to focus on 117 cities where 80% of the new infections have been reported and to open in each such city at least one HIV clinic which has convenient evening hours for working people, and is a one-stop shop that provides prevention, counseling, laboratory work-up, and treatment services. These are the Sundown clinics. The government has also taken measures towards enabling rapid HIV screening and delivery of test results.

https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/10649

hiv-diagnosed-per-day-rappler-05152015-2.jpg
No, unprotected sex spreads HIV, not homosexuality.

A couple of points: 1. If two non infected homosexual people have a fully monogamous relationship, they won't catch HIV, so HIV isn't an argument against them.

2. HIV transmission is virtually unknown between homosexual women, so if HIV transmission rates are your argument, heterosexuals are more "sinful" than homosexual women.

3. If you ARE basing your argument on HIV transmission rates, why doesn't the same logic apply to any of the other population specific diseases? For example, Sickle Cell Anemia is predominantly a disease among sub Saharan Africans, does SCA mean it's wrong to be black? How about Leiden V disorder? Unknown outside of Northern European descended people, does Leiden V make being European sinful?
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
In a post in another thread it was mentioned that god considers gay sex a sin. Nothing new. Everyone knows it, but it got me wondering why. What is so wrong about an act, which only brings pleasure and hurts no one, that god considers it a sin? So much so, in fact, that if one engages in homosexual sex god will bar such an unrepentant or ignorant sinner from Heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
While, as I understand it, it's no sin to have a homosexual attachment to someone, as long as it isn't lustful I guess, it does imply that once pee pees touch or hoo-has meet it's all over. Think of it. Let the sexual organs of two homosexuals get as close as possible while still leaving breathing space between them and you're home free. BUT let the two touch for just a fraction of a second and god will have picked up on it and punched your ticket to hell.

I know the Bible doesn't explain why god detests homosexual sex in particular---although "denial" does come to mind---but shouldn't there be an obvious reason for it? Or does it all come down to invoking the old "God Works In Mysterious Ways" rationalization?


In any case, let's hear it people!
The Reason God Detests Homosexual Sex Is BECAUSE:____________________________________________ .
(And "because It's icky" is not an acceptable answer.)

.

It is quite likely that Paul was a homosexual. For instance, Paul states that he has no desire to have sex with women, and given that homosexuality is considerably more common that asexuality, it is quite likely that Paul was a homosexual, and also actively engaged in homosexual sex. Those who disagree with me will point out to his passages that condemn homosexuality as being "sinful" but given that Paul also referred to himself as the "chief of sinners" it is certainly possible that he believed homosexuality was sinful, and yet was still a practicing homosexual.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My errors lol. Your errors are thinking if no one saw it, it didn't happen.
If a tree falls in the woods and you didn't see it, did it still fall? It's a simple question.
You still cannot reason logically. No one said or implied such a thing. Like I said, I will correct your errors this morning and I take it that my answer to the question as to whether you could reason logically is "No."
 
Top