Spartan
Well-Known Member
Only if it's not loving, consensual, committed and equitable. The bible also condones slavery. Are for that, too?
<facepalm> You, who supports the Biblical sin of homosexual sex, encourages people to be slaves to sin.
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!
Only if it's not loving, consensual, committed and equitable. The bible also condones slavery. Are for that, too?
Better than being a slave to the sin of false piety...<facepalm> You, who supports the Biblical sin of homosexual sex, encourages people to be slaves to sin.
Better than being a slave to the sin of false piety...
And yet, your posts abuse it anyway...If I had piety I wouldn't need my Savior Jesus Christ. Nice try.
And yet, your posts abuse it anyway...
1) It's not a contest. 2) You're in no position to be able to determine what I do or don't know about the "truth." 3) Your post reads like a 5-year-old sour-grapes whine. That really the best you got in the way of argument: bluster, a tantrum, and a game of "Who-Got-Your-Nose?"That's just more of your usual nonsense. You don't know the truth about gay sex being a sin either. You're 0-2 at least.
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.
Science knows a lot about humanity.
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."
l,
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.
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.
Having gay friends and family does not indicate that you don't have biased, misguided beliefs about us. That was the point of my "I have a black friend" comment.
Great, then you understand that homophobia, such as telling gay people that our sexuality, simply by virtue of the gender we're attracted to, is inherently broken, sinful, evil, unnatural, disgusting, the equivalent of pedophilia or bestiality, the result of sexual abuse, that we're "not really gay" just confused, or that we're going to hell if we ever act on our sexual desires, is all deeply psychologically traumatic and hurtful to us. Particularly when you ingrain those messages in our heads from the time we can understand what you're saying. I'm so glad that you understand that. And I'm sure moving forward you'll act accordingly. Right?
Again, the guilt-tripping and gaslighting is noted. If I don't agree with you, I'm "blame shifting" or am not being honest about my "wounded" sexuality. IMHO, people need to educate themselves with empirical data and by actually believing gay people when they share their inner life instead of assuming that they're not being honest.
Given that you won't even believe what I've already told you, and are repeatedly attempting to guilt-trip and gaslight me, why would I share more of my inner life with you?
If you actually want to know more about how gay people feel, start by giving us the benefit of the doubt about our own feelings and experiences instead of trying to immediately fit the square peg of our lives into the round hole of your preconceived theology, and assuming that we're lying to you when what we say doesn't fit your paradigm.
None of that changes the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that Romans 1:26-27 is obviously about anal sex of women and men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly". And it's your choice if you believe that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" and that female genitalia are "vile" and "unseemly".
None of that changes the fact that a biblical marriage is simply a personal agreement between two people to shack up together.
Obviously biblical morality (including the ten commandments etc) is just made made, which is why it wasn't morally wrong when Abraham shacked up with his sister Sarah and committed adultery with Hagar. Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother, or for Noah's father to kill a boy for hitting him (Gen 4) since the ten commandments did not apply to them or their ancestors.
What? Did you just compare homosexuality to pedophilia?
Your "limits" are arbitrary and stupid. It's okay for one couple to do the exact same behavior that you deem sinful for another couple to do just because of the genders involved. That makes no sense.
I don't have A (ONE) gay friend, but many, and have counseled Christians and non-Christians who struggle with gay desires, so your point that I'm prejudiced is moot. I AM biased, because I'm a fundamentalist, yes, and much of what you presented is subjective and even fashionable today.
Why would you avoid transparency with me?
I'll make it simple for you:
EVERY gay person I've met/know who never had straight desire/attempted to perform straight sex/cover up/etc. were either distant from their same sex parent/guardian or imprinted when early sexual experience was gay experience.
In other words Romans 1:26-27 says that anal sex of women and men is "vile" and "unseemly" which is why the bible says nothing about female homosexuality.God's complimentary design is evident in sexuality and many other ways, in the two genders of humans. The issue is people turn to homosexuality from lust or brokenness (Romans 1) and God wants us to be wholistic and whole.
Jesus heals and IMHO you should let Him heal your mindset that everything is clean and decent in bed. It sure is--for married straight couples, who've made vows to one another and often, God.
So what were the consequences for Abraham when he shacked up with his sister Sarah and committed adultery with Hagar? And what were the consequences for Cain(an) after he killed his brother Abel and relocated to Nod and married a Nod girl and lived happily ever after? And is that why Abraham and Noah never went to heaven (John 3:13) even though the ten commandments etc didn't apply to them since biblical morality is obviously just man-made and changes as society changes?There were consequences to the sins you've described above, and the concept that sin exists in the conscience, before specific laws were enacted, is a main point of Romans 5.
Which is why the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuals since they do not have anal sex as described for heterosexual women in Romans 1:26-27.The Bible does not say male or female genitals are "vile" or "unseemly" in any version I've read.
Dream on, Dream on!!! So where does Romans 1:26-27 say anything about female homosexuality, or "women with women working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from anal sex with other women as "likewise also the men"?The Bible does speak of female homosexuality, as anyone who reads Romans 1 sees if they're not in denial.
That's your personal choice if you like it both ways, but it doesn't change the fact that PauI described anal sex of women and men as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27).The Bible mentions sex other than intercourse in Song of Songs, so I wouldn't say consensual anal sex is "dirty" for a married couple. Sex is beautiful, made by God, but homosexuality, as the Bible plainly describes, is, like adutery and fornication, destructive to people, families and society.
It's only a sin if you personally believe that it's a sin. Which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister and commit adultery, and for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, given that the ten commandments etc did not apply to them since biblical morality is obviously just man-made.That's just more of your usual nonsense. You don't know the truth about gay sex being a sin either. You're 0-2 at least.
I literally recommended that you stick to empirical research findings. That's as objective as one can get. I'm sure your MANY gay friends would advise you similarly.
Asked and answered. Why would I share my inner life with you if you're simply going to accuse me of denial or dishonesty if my experience doesn't match your preconceived worldview?
If you have SO many gay friends, then if you have any respect for them, or for me, or for the truth, please don't tell us how we feel. We can tell you how we feel. But that also means being objective enough to admit that when our experiences don't match your theology, your theology might just be wrong.
And now that hypothesis has been falsified. You've met someone who doesn't match that description. So you now have a choice: accuse my of lying/denial, or adjust your worldview to fit the evidence. Which will you do?
My hypothesis is yet to be falsified, since you've answered no questions, avoided the subtleties, and simply said, "No, not me." Not me WHAT. You've not always been gay? You never experimented? Tried hetero sex? Your dad/guardian was wonderful? Etc.
There is a paucity of research into the psychology of sexual imprinting and homosexuality, the more so since some decisions were made in science that don't line up with reality.
Therefore, I plan to go with my own research, which is talking to many people about their sexuality.
I didn't tell you how you "feel".
I told you the people I know who are gay experience tremendous trauma and brokenness that is not all "from the outside" of themselves.
Which is why the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuals since they do not have anal sex as described for heterosexual women in Romans 1:26-27.
Dream on, Dream on!!! So where does Romans 1:26-27 say anything about female homosexuality, or "women with women working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from anal sex with other women as "likewise also the men"?
That's your personal choice if you like it both ways, but it doesn't change the fact that PauI described anal sex of women and men as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27).
And is that why David said that his love with Jonathon was more wonderful than with any of his wives and concubines (2Sam 1:26) and why Jonathon's father was disgusted with their relationship (1Sam 20:30)?
And IYHO do you also think that Leviticus 18 & 20 says that it's OK to have anal sex with women but not with men since it is disgusting (ie abomination) and degrading because women are subservient to men?
I wasn't sexually abused or "imprinted" as a child, and had a generally good relationship with my father growing up. And yes I've always been gay. I answered several of your questions, till you started alleging that I was lying simply because my experience didn't match your stereotype.
Such as? How did you figure out what "reality" is?
AKA anecdote.
Yes, you did. The fact that you don't even realize you're doing it is part of the problem.
Trauma by definition is something that happens to a person, as a result of some event.
Trauma | Psychology Today
So yes, all trauma is from outside the person themselves. One example of trauma is being gay or trans and being raised in a deeply homophobic or transphobic home.
Your anecdotes of gay people you know are not representative of all gay people. You understand that, right?