• 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!

God And Homosexuality

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your pro-Sodomy defense isn't making it. God's not buying it either. Get a new mutt to run around the arena.
You've made up lies about 1) what the bible says, 2) what Jesus would or would not condone, 3) the spiritual state of those who identify as homosexual, 3) the advisability of marriage. Why not just go on ahead and make up lies about me, as well? That seems to be the major working tool of your posts for this debate. (BTW: just what does the bible say about lying? I wonder...?)

Your post also presumes that you 1) know what God is thinking and 2) that you speak for God. Both presumptions are, likewise, lies.

When did I ever present a "pro-sodomy defense?" In fact, I said that sodomy is a legal term, not a descriptive one, and since the debate doesn't center around sodomy, but upon homosexuality, and the two have nothing to do with one another, perhaps you should consider changing your tactics, coming up with a new (and effective) argument? Your posts don't seem to have mastered the flimflam tactics so prevalent among religious homophobes. It's embarrassing, really.
 

Mitty

Active Member
Your pro-Sodomy defense isn't making it. God's not buying it either. Get a new mutt to run around the arena.
So which god have you discussed that with, and did you share a meal with it like Abraham did when he and a god had a face to face discussion about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah (Gen 18)?
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
You've made up lies about 1) what the bible says, 2) what Jesus would or would not condone, 3) the spiritual state of those who identify as homosexual, 3) the advisability of marriage. Why not just go on ahead and make up lies about me, as well? That seems to be the major working tool of your posts for this debate. (BTW: just what does the bible say about lying? I wonder...?)

Your post also presumes that you 1) know what God is thinking and 2) that you speak for God. Both presumptions are, likewise, lies.

When did I ever present a "pro-sodomy defense?" In fact, I said that sodomy is a legal term, not a descriptive one, and since the debate doesn't center around sodomy, but upon homosexuality, and the two have nothing to do with one another, perhaps you should consider changing your tactics, coming up with a new (and effective) argument? Your posts don't seem to have mastered the flimflam tactics so prevalent among religious homophobes. It's embarrassing, really.

Give that fluff a rest. So, no homosexuals engage in sodomy? LOL. And it doesn't have to be just the act itself that's a sin, but a man lusting after another man is a sin too (note Matthew 5:27-28 - lusting about a sinful act). Same with a woman lusting after another woman.

As for homophobes, I'm not scared of any homosexual, so get a new dog. Gay sex is a sin, and just as John the Baptist spoke out against adultery, it's right and proper to do the same with illicit homosexual sin.
 

Mitty

Active Member
Give that fluff a rest. So, no homosexuals engage in sodomy? LOL. And it doesn't have to be just the act itself that's a sin, but a man lusting after another man is a sin too (note Matthew 5:27-28 - lusting about a sinful act). Same with a woman lusting after another woman.

As for homophobes, I'm not scared of any homosexual, so get a new dog. Gay sex is a sin, and just as John the Baptist spoke out against adultery, it's right and proper to do the same with illicit homosexual sin.
None of that changes the fact that the bible says nothing about female homosexuality or women with women despite your wishful thinking.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Give that fluff a rest. So, no homosexuals engage in sodomy? LOL.
Give that fluff a rest. So, no heterosexuals engage in sodomy? LOL. (Hint: homosexuality isn't the issue -- sodomy is the issue.)

And it doesn't have to be just the act itself that's a sin, but a man lusting after another man is a sin too
Yeah, but we're not talking about lust here. We're talking about loving, committed, equitable and consensual relationships. There's a difference. You don't get to turn those into "lust" any more than you get to turn heterosexual committee, equitable, consensual and loving relationships into "lust" just to satisfy your homophobia.

As for homophobes, I'm not scared of any homosexual,
I think Someone needs a new dog -- a tiny, white, fluffy one, with a little pink bow on its head.

Gay sex is a sin,
Not so long as it's an expression of a loving, consensual, committed and equitable relationship.

just as John the Baptist spoke out against adultery, it's right and proper to do the same with illicit homosexual sin.
But it's not OK for you to be part of systemic violence against the homosexual population. Remember: it's only "illicit" if it's an act of violence and not loving, committed, consensual and equitable. At least that's so in this country, for which countless brave souls have made the ultimate sacrifice for everyone's right to express themselves fully as human beings.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
But it's not OK for you to be part of systemic violence against the homosexual population.

I support systemic violence against the homosexual population? Horse manure.

Remember: it's only "illicit" if it's an act of violence and not loving, committed, consensual and equitable. At least that's so in this country, for which countless brave souls have made the ultimate sacrifice for everyone's right to express themselves fully as human beings.

Yeah, homosexuals have a right to gay marriage in this country. But the Bible says the afterlife is another story.

1 Co 6:9 - "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Great question! One of the reasons why I don't accept the concept any longer.



"I have a black friend" does not impress me. I didnt judge you, I judged what you said. You believe things that are simply unfounded about my community.



That's true - the pain I'm in is being told hurtful things that aren't true about myself and my LGBTQ brothers and sisters by people like you.



Your attempted guilt trip is noted, and won't work.

I didn't say "I have a black friend." I said I have gay friends and family and am not ignorant of the issues, their complexity, or the desire of gays to say their internal compasss, which tells them something is wrong/guilty/hurting is 100% from outside themselves.

IMHO, all persons need to trust Jesus for salvation, friends who have are honest about where their sexuality has been bruised/wounded--they deal with past hurts instead of blame shifting.

I'm a Jew. Half my race was killed in living memory in a genocide. I don't say "the pain I'm in is because of anti-Semitism". Let us both deal honestly with our pain, starting with, have you doubted or struggled with gay desires/been unsure you are gay, without a justification like "The struggles I had were all because of others' comments and opinions".
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
first, Jesus was a product of his culture. When he spoke of marriage, he spoke from what the culture knew. Since the culture was unaware of sexual orientation, Jesus couldn't speak to anything different.
Second, Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality. Not one. He never even mentioned same-sex acts at all. So, to say "Jesus said blah-blah-blah" is disingenuous.


I think that's disingenuous. There are Jesus quotes, and then there is everything else. In order to have a pure reading, we can only say, "Paul is quoted as saying yadda yadda..." to blur that is just bad scholarship, because it puts in place an unnecessary and unwanted bias of the reading.

The culture was unaware of orientation? I think you meant, "the culture considered certain orientations toxic/unnatural.

Jesus was God IMHO, not a mere "product of his culture" as you wrote. Why else would he elevate women, children and Gentiles, so very greatly?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Because we live in a society. This isn't about "what we do," it's about who we are. And who we are is reflected by our fellows. One's sexual orientation isn't just some hobby we can pick up and lay down. It's a HUGE part of our self-identity -- it's … who we are. Those who identify as homosexual are in a minority -- and it's historically been a minority without a voice and without any social power. In most states, it's still OK to discriminate against those who identify as homosexual. When those in the majority -- and those who wield power -- speak out in judgment against homosexuality, it dehumanizes those who identify as such. It claims that their very identity as human beings is invalid. It does not allow them an identity and an expression that lets them be fully and wholly human. It claims that who they are is somehow "broken." Dehumanization in this way is a form of violence. It's the same kind of dehumanization perpetrated upon blacks, treating them as "less than human, or, at best, "lesser humans." It's violence because it represents an attack of the powerful against those who are not allowed to have a voice. It's violence because it emotionally (and many times physically, as we saw recently in Minneapolis) damages people. It's systemic because the social power structure supports it.

Science has determined that homosexuality is a normal and healthy expression of humanity. It does not appear as an "aberration" or "Illness" in the DSM-IV. Therefore, the majority social power structure is wrong in speaking out, in acting out, in discriminating, singling out, and claiming that those who identify as homosexual are in any way different or less than others.


Homosexuality isn't sin. The bible never speaks about homosexuality. The bible is not the best indicator of what is and is not "normal" physically, psychologically, medically.

I'm aware of the change to the DSM-IV. I'm also aware that no culture before now has accepted homosexuality as normative or appropriate, including the Spartans/Romans/Greeks, especially since their gay culture was a horrid rape culture where the passive recipient of the man was belitted/lowered. How horrible.

This statement of yours intrigues me, "Science has determined that homosexuality is a normal and healthy expression of humanity." I've also heard recently that science can tell us when life begins or that rape is wrong and consensual sex is good!

Homosexual activity (not mere desire) is sin in the Bible, the Bible mentions homosexuality in 18 different accounts, none of them good. The Bible is the very best indicator of how to think, how to trust, when to trust, how to plan, act, live, die and rise IMHO!

As a Jew who has experienced racism/persecution/violence, I sympathize with being singled out for you are. Biblically, though, being gay is not who you have to be going forward IMHO.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Oh, but somehow the sky falls down when it's two men. Nice hypocrisy. Might that have to do with your own personal tastes in bed? :rolleyes:

So you draw no lines? Because "the sky falls" when it's an adult and a child. There are limits, you just don't like them in certain places, I think.

I encourage you to listen first, read the Bible--learn a bit. I say that to you respectfully.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
This is really terrible theology. Human sex drive =/= "being animals." Theologically, sex and fulfillment are equated with each other. have you ever read Song of Solomon??

Yes, GOD made sex, not Satan. I like sex very much!

Jesus is also GOD and didn't need sex while on Earth, or food or water or other things. He is GOD.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What is premarital sex, given that a biblical marriage is simply a personal agreement between two people to shack up together and doesn't require a legally signed marriage contract or a wedding celebrant or witnesses? Which is why Abraham shacked up with his sister Sarah.

And well may that be your "honest opinion", but Jesus didn't claim to be a god, nor to be without sin (Mark 10:18), nor to be a saviour, nor to have sex with a church since he loved one of his disciples. He only claimed to be a prophet even though his own family (including his mother and her husband) didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-58 John 7:5). And he unsuccessfully appealed for help from his god when he was being executed by the Romans for sedition and mocked as the "King of the Jews", which is hardly a god-like trait.

I think you haven't studied marriage among Jews or in the ANE much.

Jesus also told the opposite, for example, "Don't you know I can call angels now to rescue me, but I won't."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
None of that changes the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuality, and only refers to anal sex of women and men (Romans 1:26-27 Leviticus 18 & 20).

And where does the bible say that anal sex is permissible and that anal sex is the "natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27), or did you just make that up too?
And what is the difference between a male or female anus apart from being a contraceptive device?

NONSENSE. the word eunuch means bedchamber attendant and has nothing what-so-ever to do with their sexual abilities.

And are you claiming that homosexual clergymen are eunuchs and particularly if they remain celibate. And if so, was Jesus a eunuch too and why he asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12) and why he loved one of his disciples and not a wife?

Was Queen Candace's bedchamber attendant a homosexual and is that why Philip groped him in his chariot (Acts 8:27-29)?

I've answered all your questions, you are continuing to duck what I said, including the statement that the women/men engaged in unnatural acts (plural), not anal sex (single act we can think of).
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So why did Jesus love one of his disciples instead of a wife? And is that why he said nothing about homosexuality?

Jesus spoke against homosexuality, defining a marriage as a man and woman, with God as witness.

Jesus loved all His disciples, telling them He loved them all with a great love, and John, who wrote one of the gospels, was excited to report He loved John.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I support systemic violence against the homosexual population? Horse manure.
When you speak out publicly against them, yes, it is taking part in systemic violence.

Yeah, homosexuals have a right to gay marriage in this country.
Dang right they do. So why do you have a problem with what's legal? And supported by the mainstream church?

But the Bible says the afterlife is another story.
I don't think so.

1 Co 6:9 - "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."
Don't you know that it's widely accepted that this passage is talking about pederasty and is in no way targeting consensual, committed, equitable and loving relationships? You should know that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The culture was unaware of orientation? I think you meant, "the culture considered certain orientations toxic/unnatural.
No; I know what I meant, and I said what I meant. In that culture, there was no awareness of orientation. Heck! There wasn't an awareness of orientation in our own culture until the late 20th century! Even now (as you have so clearly illustrated) there are toxic parts of the culture that perpetrate the "unnaturalness" of the orientation, even though the medical community has declared that it is, in fact, natural and healthy.

Jesus was God IMHO, not a mere "product of his culture" as you wrote. Why else would he elevate women, children and Gentiles, so very greatly?
Yes, but the writers who give us the only evidence we have for Jesus could not be aware of what others in that culture were not aware of.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm aware of the change to the DSM-IV. I'm also aware that no culture before now has accepted homosexuality as normative or appropriate, including the Spartans/Romans/Greeks, especially since their gay culture was a horrid rape culture where the passive recipient of the man was belitted/lowered. How horrible.
Then you also must be aware of how we have grown beyond iron-age thinking, such as, "Who did his parents tick off, that he was born blind?" Part of the reason why "gay culture" then was violent, is because of the lack of awareness of the fullness of human sexuality. It was anger born of frustration born out of misunderstanding and the condemnation of their fellows. Most homosexuals are no longer that way, since medical science has provided greater understanding, and since society has advanced since biblical times.

Your example illustrates the same phenomenon in which blacks riot, loot, burn, when one of them is killed through systemic violence. Black people are not "normally" violent. Neither are those who identify as homosexual.

This statement of yours intrigues me, "Science has determined that homosexuality is a normal and healthy expression of humanity." I've also heard recently that science can tell us when life begins or that rape is wrong and consensual sex is good!
Science knows a lot about humanity.

Homosexual activity (not mere desire) is sin in the Bible
Because the writers did not understand that humans are oriented sexually. Therefore, what is actually a normal part of human identity and expression was seen as "unnatural," and therefore "sin."

The Bible is the very best indicator of how to think, how to trust, when to trust, how to plan, act, live, die and rise IMHO!
So, the bible knows the very best that slavery is a "natural" part of society? It knows that women are "less than" men? It knows that it's OK to kill children? No, I'm afraid the bible is a product of its culture. It promotes love, equity, compassion, mercy, but the ways in which it condones achieving these things is as outdated as the cultures that produced it. We're not living in the Iron Age anymore. we are constrained to live out love, equity, compassion and mercy from our own societal perspectives.

As a Jew who has experienced racism/persecution/violence, I sympathize with being singled out for you are. Biblically, though, being gay is not who you have to be going forward IMHO.
Since the bible never addresses "being gay," I don't see how it can teach that "being gay is not who you have to be going forward." This is nothing more than eisegesis on your part. I would stand on the same ground as you do if I said that the bible teaches that you don't have to be a Jew going forward. Jesus came to do away with Judaism when he started the church. You can (and should) change your religion, just as homosexuals can (and should) change their sexual identities. You see how this works? When we don't take time or effort to exegete the texts, we can justify and purify all kinds of systemic violence in the name of religion.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jesus is also GOD and didn't need sex while on Earth, or food or water or other things. He is GOD.
How do you know that? Can we be sure that Jesus wasn't married, or had relationships? I think the best we can say is that "we don't know for sure."
 
Top