God And Homosexuality

[SkepticThinker]

Actually it is up to the people. If a group of people do not accept a definition for a term then there is no agreement and there's little you can do about it. For people with faith, science comes after faith. I.e. If there is a contradiction, one accepts what God commands and disregards what scientists say.

That is horrifying.

 

[columbus]

I'm not sure, but the number of disbelievers on this thread tells us there is some reason that they do care.

Because people, like you, try to mess up my life by forcing your opinions on me. I don't care what you believe or do personally, but I feel no need to follow the primitive ethics of ancient warlords like Moses or Muhammad. Claiming to know more about God than I do is not impressive to me.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Do you think that what is legal according to the state is always moral? Think of the things that were legal in Nazi Germany.

Do you think that what is legal according to the bible is always moral? Think of things like levirate marriage and slavery. And stoning people to death. No, I'm afraid that argument won't wash.

 

[columbus]

Do you think that what is legal according to the state is always moral? Think of the things that were legal in Nazi Germany.

Do you realize that one of Hitler's most effective methods was appealing to God? Through Martin Luther, and Scripture, and Christian tradition?
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's true, but is not demonstrated to cause sexual orientation, either gay, straight, or otherwise. Sexual orientation is not a fetish.



I've done so. Show me the literature demonstrating that sexual imprinting of minors causes them to become gay.

Sorry, not just Google the headlines but read the literature. We can start by agreeing first experiences imprint powerfully.

Now, I've been a church counselor, and helped people who were abused by friends or family members, unlike you, these experiences were pre-pubescent. They knew they weren't born gay, they knew they were imprinted.

Regardless of origin, it's only a modern trend to say homosexuality is of neutral or positive value. It's also a modern trend to say the Bible isn't the standard of right and wrong.

Can we learn anything from our interaction? You seem pretty open-minded, can you say the same for me or will you label me again?

 

[BilliardsBall]

last time I looked, rain is an abundance. So are sunshine, air, soil, nutrients, water, health, life, and artistic ability -- all of which the bible says are God's creation and given to humanity indiscriminately. so I'd have to say the bible passage is taken out of context and tortured to "prove" your point. Additionally, God gave Eden to one who didn't "trust Jesus." your "argument" fails.


The word "homosexuality" does not appear anywhere in the texts. If the term was invented only in the last century, why in the world are you using it when discussing the bible? It only serves to obfuscate.


"Men who have sex with men" aren't automatically homosexual. Straight men have sex with men all the time in prison. That doesn't make it "gay sex." It makes it rape. It makes it violence. It makes it a same-sex act." Right there is where the obfuscation I mentioned above happens: when foolish people conflate "men having sex with men" with "men who identify as homosexual." The bible patently does not explicitly mention "people who identify as homosexual." It does mention "same sex acts," but it does not define precisely what those same-sex acts were comprised of. It's irresponsible to make baseless assumptions that aren't there, and unethical to apply those assumptions as "God's Law" when discriminating against a minority group you happen to disapprove of.


This link: What Is Systemic Violence? | AVP Massachusetts provides a good description of systemic violence. Here's another good definition: "In Social Sciences, systematic violence refers to a type of collective action, sometimes prompted by culture or religion and sometimes by prejudice. Hate crimes, brought on by intolerance, have marginalized minorities who have a different sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race and so on, from those around them. These groups have been targeted and even driven out of neighborhoods. Xenophobic violence is one such example when large groups of people "systematically" drive others out of their community through violent and cruel treatment."

Systemic violence happens when the prevailing voice of the majority dehumanizes members of a minority by making claims that the minority is "broken," "sick," "wrong," "misguided," etc. It's dehumanizing because it fails to recognize and affirm the individual as fully human by claiming that the person's very self is somehow less than it "ought" to be." When you make unfounded statements that run afoul of contemporary scientific understanding with regard to the "brokenness" of homosexuals, it's violence.


Nope. Where systemic violence is concerned, I shall not "take it easy." This needs to be identified, called out, and eradicated from our vocabulary and our social sensibilities.


I didn't call you "vile." I called actions "vile." Acts of systemic violence are vile. Labeling the resistance of violence as "aggression" is yet another instance of systemic violence. Systemic violence is wrong. Resistance to such violence is right.

Why am I using the scientific term, homosexual? Do you want me to keep typing instead, "men who lie with men as a man who lies with a woman and woman who abandon the natural function of the man and do things with one another"?

Respectfully, I think you're nit picking.

Honestly, I think you've been hurt. Telling me it's NOT true God has special resources for those who love Him, because God gave Adam Eden, for example? He expelled Adam from the Garden for sin, for lack of trust!

You are correct that straight men have sex in prison without being gay. Yes, and the Bible condemns this act, calling it lust that has spilled over. It leads to violence at times, as you wrote. This is the type of violence we both want to see eradicated. The Bible explains that since Adam and Eve sinned, we are subject to great self-destruction psychology and physically.

I want to say that I don't think homosexuals have had internal struggles since Adam until about 10 years ago because EVERY society was "wrong". I think there is an internal compass that speaks to you, and the Bible speaks of that interior voice in a main passage condemning homosexuality (Romans 1).

No likes to hear that they're wrong. Consider being a Jewish born again Christian like me, just for a minute. I have people constantly condemning me . . . for being me. But when someone says, "Get right with God, give up Christianity and return to Judaism," I have to consider whether they're being helpful or sincere, and not simply write them off as a bigot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you're appropriating homosexuality in order to eradicate it? Just... Wow!

Who said "appropriating", brother? How about, I'm a little gay myself!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Only in your dreams. So where does the bible speak about female homosexuality in both Romans 1 and/or in numerous passages in both testaments? Or is that just wishful thinking?

And what is your evidence to support your claim that prostitutes are female homosexuals? Or did you just make that up, and is that just wishful thinking too?

Do you have questions for me? These sound like an attempt to use shock value, rhetorically.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So why did Lot sexually assault his daughters after he tried to pimp them and mocked his sons-in-law (Gen 19), and is that because the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him since biblical morality is obviously just man made, including the ten commandments?

In other words, Jesus didn't claim to be a god or to be without sin, given that he didn't deny being a boozer (Matt 11:19) as condemned by Paul (1Cor 6:10), which was why he performed a conjuring trick with some previously hidden wine in order to irresponsibly make some already "well drunk" boozers even drunker instead of suggesting they drink the water instead to help sober up (John 2:1-10).

Do you have questions for me? These sound like an attempt to use shock value, rhetorically.

 

[Mitty]

Sorry, not just Google the headlines but read the literature. We can start by agreeing first experiences imprint powerfully.

Now, I've been a church counselor, and helped people who were abused by friends or family members, unlike you, these experiences were pre-pubescent. They knew they weren't born gay, they knew they were imprinted.

So how are homosexual clergymen "imprinted", and is that because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12)?

Regardless of origin, it's only a modern trend to say homosexuality is of neutral or positive value. It's also a modern trend to say the Bible isn't the standard of right and wrong.

Was it right or wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister and commit adultery with Hagar?

Was it right or wrong for Lot to try to pimp his daughters and sexually assault them after he mocked their future husbands?

Was it right or wrong for Cain(an)'s god to protect him from retribution after he killed his brother Abel?

Was it right or wrong for the bible to command genocide and the butchering of children and the unborn (Deut 7:16)?

Was it right or wrong for the bible to command abortions of adulteresses (Numbers 5:20-28)?

 

[Mitty]

Do you have questions for me? These sound like an attempt to use shock value, rhetorically.

In other words the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality. Nor can you demonstrate that biblical prostitutes are female homosexuals as you falsely claim.

 

[Mitty]

Do you have questions for me? These sound like an attempt to use shock value, rhetorically.

But that's what the bible actually says, and it's your choice if you don't believe what the bible actually says and that biblical morality is obviously just man-made, including the ten commandments etc since they didn't apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, not just Google the headlines but read the literature. We can start by agreeing first experiences imprint powerfully.

I've read quote a bit of peer reviewed literature on homosexuality, sir. I await your production of peer reviewed research that supports the claim that sexual imprinting of minors causes homosexuality.

Now, I've been a church counselor, and helped people who were abused by friends or family members, unlike you, these experiences were pre-pubescent. They knew they weren't born gay, they knew they were imprinted.

Fascinating. Again, your anecdotes do not scientific conclusions make.

Regardless of origin, it's only a modern trend to say homosexuality is of neutral or positive value.

The concept of sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else) is a modern concept, no doubt. So what? Pre-modern and non-Western societies have accepted what we would now call LGBTQ people to various degrees throughout history. And even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't change our conversation at all.

It's also a modern trend to say the Bible isn't the standard of right and wrong.

Sure. It's also a modern trend to say women should have the right to vote. It's also a modern trend to say gay sex shouldn't literally be a crime. It's a modern trend to say slavery should be illegal. What's your point?

Can we learn anything from our interaction? You seem pretty open-minded, can you say the same for me or will you label me again?

I'd like to be clear that it was you who seemed to label me as dishonest for not conforming to your inaccurate stereotype about gay people. All I've said about you is that your views about my community are inaccurate, and seem clearly informed by your preconceived religious worldview, which requires you as a matter of dogma to believe that gay sexuality is sinful.

Before I draw any further conclusions about you, I'm happy to wait and see how you respond, as I said before. You can either acknowledge that you've now met a gay person who doesn't fit your stereotype, and therefore the causal chain you've made in your head about why people are gay is incorrect, or you may again call me dishonest and insist on your preconceived view. If you opt for the former, I'll be quite happy with the progress of the conversation.

 

[sojourner]

Respectfully, I think you're nit picking.

I don't. Language matters. The bible doesn't mention homosexuality; it mentions some undisclosed same-sex acts. So to use those passages to condemn the orientation is a theological and ethical mistake that "nit-picking" seeks to correct.

Honestly, I think you've been hurt.

I'm not gay. Stop trying to counsel me. it's neither asked for, nor warranted. And you needent4 call my faith into question either. You're neither authorized nor qualified.

The Bible explains that since Adam and Eve sinned, we are subject to great self-destruction psychology and physically.

Homosexuality isn't self-destructive.

I want to say that I don't think homosexuals have had internal struggles since Adam until about 10 years ago because EVERY society was "wrong".

I think the major problem with those who identify as homosexual is the judgment, condemnation, oppression and ostracization they've had to endure from their respective cultures and religions.

the Bible speaks of that interior voice in a main passage condemning homosexuality (Romans 1).

Romans doesn't address homosexuality.

I have to consider whether they're being helpful or sincere, and not simply write them off as a bigot.

A) You can change your religion. A religion isn't "who you are." You can't change the color of your skin or your orientation.
B) It's neither helpful nor sincere to attack who one is because of an unfounded belief.

Who said "appropriating", brother? How about, I'm a little gay myself!!

Is that like being "a little black," or "a little Christian?" You're making excuses.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that most people in civilized countries support same-sex marriage.

And what effect do same-sex marriages have on your life anyway?

I have a relative who lives in an open, polyamorous, bisexual marriage. Don't assume that my life is unaffected by the times. I don't live on the South Pole.

 

[Mitty]

I have a relative who lives in an open, polyamorous, bisexual marriage. Don't assume that my life is unaffected by the times. I don't live on the South Pole.

Is that a polygamous or a polyandrous marriage, and how does it affect your life?

 

[Mitty]

Do you think that what is legal according to the state is always moral?

What is morality?
And was it moral for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar?
And was it moral for Lot to pimp his daughters and sexually assault them after he mocked his sons-in-law (Gen 19)?
And was it moral for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, given that his god protected him from retribution when he relocated to Nod and lived happily ever after with a Nod girl (Gen 4)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've read quote a bit of peer reviewed literature on homosexuality, sir. I await your production of peer reviewed research that supports the claim that sexual imprinting of minors causes homosexuality.



Fascinating. Again, your anecdotes do not scientific conclusions make.



The concept of sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else) is a modern concept, no doubt. So what? Pre-modern and non-Western societies have accepted what we would now call LGBTQ people to various degrees throughout history. And even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't change our conversation at all.



Sure. It's also a modern trend to say women should have the right to vote. It's also a modern trend to say gay sex shouldn't literally be a crime. It's a modern trend to say slavery should be illegal. What's your point?



I'd like to be clear that it was you who seemed to label me as dishonest for not conforming to your inaccurate stereotype about gay people. All I've said about you is that your views about my community are inaccurate, and seem clearly informed by your preconceived religious worldview, which requires you as a matter of dogma to believe that gay sexuality is sinful.

Before I draw any further conclusions about you, I'm happy to wait and see how you respond, as I said before. You can either acknowledge that you've now met a gay person who doesn't fit your stereotype, and therefore the causal chain you've made in your head about why people are gay is incorrect, or you may again call me dishonest and insist on your preconceived view. If you opt for the former, I'll be quite happy with the progress of the conversation.

All we've established is that you acknowledge imprinting is powerful, and that you claim you've had/have a hunky dory relationship with your father. So I feel we're both wasting time on this subject, no offense.

There is no peer reviewed research that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus saves, that homosexuality can be linked to early sex experiences. There's also no peer reviewed research that people have souls, or that love exists, or that God created.

You are well-read about homosexuality--where the opinions back you up, cherry picking. I feel I do well by using the Bible for a life guide.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't. Language matters. The bible doesn't mention homosexuality; it mentions some undisclosed same-sex acts. So to use those passages to condemn the orientation is a theological and ethical mistake that "nit-picking" seeks to correct.


I'm not gay. Stop trying to counsel me. it's neither asked for, nor warranted. And you needent4 call my faith into question either. You're neither authorized nor qualified.


Homosexuality isn't self-destructive.


I think the major problem with those who identify as homosexual is the judgment, condemnation, oppression and ostracization they've had to endure from their respective cultures and religions.


Romans doesn't address homosexuality.


A) You can change your religion. A religion isn't "who you are." You can't change the color of your skin or your orientation.
B) It's neither helpful nor sincere to attack who one is because of an unfounded belief.


Is that like being "a little black," or "a little Christian?" You're making excuses.

If we're talking qualifications, you should let the Bible speak for itself! It is certainly qualified. Claiming the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

"Execute two men together, lying together as a man lies with a woman," is a call for the death penalty for straights or bi-curious people?! Nonsense.

I respect your zeal for truth. I hope you will keep pursuing truth to its logical conclusions.

 

[Mitty]

If we're talking qualifications, you should let the Bible speak for itself! It is certainly qualified. Claiming the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

"Execute two men together, lying together as a man lies with a woman," is a call for the death penalty for straights or bi-curious people?! Nonsense.

I respect your zeal for truth. I hope you will keep pursuing truth to its logical conclusions.

So why doesn't the bible say anything about female homosexuality and say "execute two women together, lying together as a woman lies with a man" or in the same way as a woman lies with a stallion or her dog or a bull elephant (Leviticus 20)?
Or is that because a woman does not have anal sex with a woman as with a man and as described in Romans 1:26-27 for anal sex of women?