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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jude still doesn't inform Genesis. Assuming that it does leads to the dehumanization of many, as your post does here.
No. It doesn't.
This is a patent lie. Jesus is never quoted as mentioning homosexuality at all. and, in fact, the terms "homoexual" and "homosexuality" never appear in the bible. Dehumanizing people in the name of a misunderstood theology isn't right in any way.
No, it's not a justification of sin, or of anything else. Sexual orientation needs no justification, any more than heterosexuality needs to be justified. Although the position that "the Bible is the best indicator of the nature of homosexuality" sounds a whole lot like a justification for discrimination."
Speaking for myself,
God's word does not condemn loving, consensual, equitable, committed sexual relationships of any sort. And you can't point to any text that says God does, unless you assume a whole lot that really isn't there. No, I'm afraid it's the ones who read into the texts the false piety they wish to see there, and then project "what God 'says'" onto others, shaming them for being fully human, who are doing the dehumanizing. The bible isn't nearly as clear or succinct on the matter as you imagine it to be, and no amount of faux-pietistic bluster can make it so.
But God does approve of relationships that are loving, consensual, equitable, and committed -- I believe whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature. But, BTW, God does not approve of wholesale judgment of others that perpetuates systemic violence perptrated in God's name.
And did he have sex with his bride, or is that why he loved one of his disciples instead?
And do you have any evidence to support that claim and that Jude was an eyewitness to the story in Gen 19 about how Lot mocked his sons-in-law for wanting to know what two blokes were up to in Lot's house and how Lot tried to pimp their future wives and sexually assaulted them?
In other words Romans 1:26-27 says that the men were obviously having anal sex with their women, and in the same way with other men also, given that Romans 1:26-27 says nothing at all about female homosexuality or woman with women, nor that the bible says that anal sex is the natural use of the woman, nor that Romans 1:26-27 says that female genitalia are vile and unseemly.
WRONG.The word "eunuch" means bedchamber attendant as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. If you believe otherwise, then how did Philip determine that Queen Candice's bedchamber attendant was asexual, and did Philip grope him in his chariot to find out (Acts 8:27-29)?
I understand that you believe this.
Loving, consensual, committed, equitable sex isn't fornication or adultery.
Why? Why do you need him to understand that? Why do you have such an overwhelming need to control the sexual behavior of those who are different from you? What is that need? Especially when the bible is tacit about the circumstances of the sexual encounter? How can you be so sure that the biblical writers simply hadn't considered the possibility of loving, committed, equitable, consensual sex between people of the same gender?
Dude, no one's buying what you're selling here, obviously. Even your fellow Christians aren't buying it.
Is that why Jesus condemned ALL remarried divorcees to hell for their adultery (Mark 10:11-12 Lev 20:10 Matt 5:27-30).