God And Homosexuality

[Mitty]

You don't get it. Just as mankind physically evolves, our moral sentience evolves too. God understands this. He gives us what we can handle when we can handle it.

Still doesn't change the fact that biblical morality (including the ten commandments) is just man made, and that the biblical gods as described in Gen 1:25-26 & Deut 10:17 are just created in the images and likenesses of the biblical writers too.

 

[Mitty]

Lot was taken advantage of.

Nonsense. How did Lot's sons-in-law take advantage of him when Lot mocked them and tried to pimp their future wives and then sexually assaulted them after sneaking out of Zoar with a stack of grog?

And perhaps you can tell us how Lot's daughters managed to maintain their drunken old father's erection and inseminate themselves on two consecutive nights which magically coincided with both their ovulations and while he had brewer's droop. Did they use an electro-ejaculator and turkey basters to inseminate themselves, or did Lot just tell lies to cover up sexually assaulting them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

What you never seem to see is that you are the one cherry picking your "data" and ignoring the "data" that doesn't fit your preconceived religious views, and then drawing undue conclusions from it and calling them "statistically significant" when they most definitely are not. You can't draw statistically significant conclusions when you are ignoring vital data.

Not to mention that I've pointed out to you on more than one occasion that "imprinting" isn't what you think it is.

If their is no evidence for a thing, like say, a "soul" then why believe in it? I don't believe in things that haven't been demonstrated to exist. Why do you?

 

[sojourner]

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

The bible doesn't "speak for itself." It needs interpretation. Claiming that the bible condemns homosexuality when the term never appears in the texts is an interpretation. And it's one that's not based on a reasonable exegesis of the texts.

"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.

Is it any more nonsense than executing two gay men? What's being condemned are sex-acts that are seen as violent or inequitable. Not the orientation of the participants.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is the marriage between Wren and Ayla a same-sex marriage or a heterosexual marriage? Wren and Ayla's story: When your wife is trans.

What do you think? Gender fluidity makes it tough to decide. Is it homosexual? Heterosexual?

There are two gender identities only in the Bible, genetic/cultural/social.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd agree the usefulness of the conversation has come to an end. You believe in the infallibility of the Bible on faith, as a matter of dogma. Evidence that contradicts that bedrock dogma in your worldview is dismissed or otherwise rationalized. As such, there's no where else for the conversation to go. Good day.

You gave me your life story, that is one piece of anecdotal evidence. I've explained the many instances I've seen. It's nothing to do with my trust in the Bible that I don't instantly relinquish much evidence based on one person's anecdote.

Nor would I ask you to do the same for me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Honestly, I agree with you.

While Lev. 20:13 doesn't literally have a problem with two guys having sex standing up(you're adding that interpretation), I'm confident that the authors were just as bigoted as more recent Christians are. Racist and genocidal, the list of standard Christian bigotry is quite long.

Many Christians are dropping scriptural morals for more rational secular morality. But it's a long process. Possibly as long as it took to convince Christian folks that non-white people are children of God. That took centuries.
Tom

Most abolitionists in the USA and UK were born again Christians. Most of the civil rights champions in the last century were born agains or Jews. I'm both. I don't appreciate these general statements made from ignorance (and, yes, bigotry). Please don't be bigoted, I think of you better than that.

I could otherwise agree with you, though--since it took a LONG time for me to parse born again Christians from Gentile Christians--I was hesitant to be persecuted for walking away from the Jewish faith to be a Christian until I realized that is a Christian, being committed to Jesus and the Bible, is enlightened and not some racist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What you never seem to see is that you are the one cherry picking your "data" and ignoring the "data" that doesn't fit your preconceived religious views, and then drawing undue conclusions from it and calling them "statistically significant" when they most definitely are not. You can't draw statistically significant conclusions when you are ignoring vital data.

Not to mention that I've pointed out to you on more than one occasion that "imprinting" isn't what you think it is.

If their is no evidence for a thing, like say, a "soul" then why believe in it? I don't believe in things that haven't been demonstrated to exist. Why do you?

Imprint = "Make a deep impression upon, a lasting impression."

Sexual imprinting = One's early/first sexual experiences make a lasting impression and are at the root of numerous fantasies, fetishes and preferences

Soul = Something for which there is much evidence/demonstrated to exist

Science = Provides opportunity for rigorous testing, but only of non-metaphysical, tangible things; almost useless when testing (or measuring or comprehending) love, justice, souls, psychology/conscience, free will, faith, trust, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The bible doesn't "speak for itself." It needs interpretation. Claiming that the bible condemns homosexuality when the term never appears in the texts is an interpretation. And it's one that's not based on a reasonable exegesis of the texts.


Is it any more nonsense than executing two gay men? What's being condemned are sex-acts that are seen as violent or inequitable. Not the orientation of the participants.

Thousands of liberal and conservative scholars have discussed the Bible's standards on sexual mores and gender. Sex between people of the same gender is condemned in the Bible, whether it is a contrivance for straights in prison or warfare or what we moderns would call "gay and lesbian".

The reasons to execute homosexuals caught in fragrante delicto in public:

1) There is no known example when this was carried out in Bible times/Jewish literature, although male ritual prostitutes were executed by various Bible kings

2) The context includes God was literally WITH the people for 40 years and demanded holiness, and children were to be kept pure and away from the abominable practices of the nations--again, the public executions were for PUBLIC sexual practices

The result of Draconian laws prohibiting sex activity was that it drove people of many preferences to be closeted for centuries. There was lack of freedom and personal suffering that should cause us all sorrow. However, I'm in certain ways for closeting if not abolishing certain behaviors. I see a modern society that is absolutely torn to pieces by porn, sexual profligacy--our children suffer.

The single biggest indicator of future struggles for a young person? Being fatherless. I see the spiritual and moral degeneracy of ALL of us as a cause for concern. I'm not here to lie to you, on a religious basis, truth is to be shared. When I meet a homosexual who claims to be a Christian, I'm led to question the sincerity of their faith.

 

[Left Coast]

You gave me your life story, that is one piece of anecdotal evidence. I've explained the many instances I've seen. It's nothing to do with my trust in the Bible that I don't instantly relinquish much evidence based on one person's anecdote.

Nor would I ask you to do the same for me.

If you claim all swans are white, it takes only one black swan to falsify your view. If you claim sexual "imprinting"/abuse is what causes homosexuality, my life demonstrates that is simply not a fact. Even if you demonstrated there was a statistically significant trend between these things, that wouldn't allow you to conclude causation.

You have zero scientific, peer reviewed evidence for the conclusion that sexual "imprinting"/abuse of minors causes homosexuality. You've admitted this. So you believe it for other reasons. If you weren't obligated to believe gayness is bad by your religious beliefs, I'd venture to bet you wouldn't be clinging so tightly to this weak hypothesis.

 

[Piculet]

What do you think? Gender fluidity makes it tough to decide. Is it homosexual? Heterosexual?

Soon they might make people use the same unisex toilets everywhere because a small group of people can't decide which gender to be.

 

[columbus]

Soon they might make people use the same unisex toilets everywhere because a small group of people can't decide which gender to be.

And maybe everybody's going to go gay and the human race will die out.....

Tom

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Soon they might make people use the same unisex toilets everywhere because a small group of people can't decide which gender to be.

In Christ there is neither male nor female.

So, Jesus IIRC said that whatever Peter declared on earth would be legal in heaven or whatever. So declare non cis heterosexual people okay and God must go with it.

Other than that, does God have to do whatever the Bible says? Who wears the pants in the relationship?

 

[Piculet]

And maybe everybody's going to go gay and the human race will die out.....

Tom

You may have missed the point: women and men should have separate toilets.

 

[columbus]

You may have missed the point: women and men should have separate toilets.

I've not missed the point, I've discussed this over and over.
You say "women and men should have separate toilets", as though you've got an argument for it. I have more nuanced views.

Mainly I don't want people causing trouble in public restrooms. As a guy, I do not care about the gender of other people in the restroom. I'm more obnoxed by other people investigating people in the men's room. However, I also realize that women have different security and cultural issues. It's just different. I expect the operators of such places to recognize and deal with the nuances. What I don't want is the government passing laws on the subject.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Soon they might make people use the same unisex toilets everywhere because a small group of people can't decide which gender to be.

Hyperbole.

 

[sojourner]

There are two gender identities only in the Bible, genetic/cultural/social.

Just because the biblical authors didn't have information that we now have doesn't make our information wrong or immoral.

 

[sojourner]

You may have missed the point: women and men should have separate toilets.

They do. Those who identify as female use the Ladies' and those who identify as male use the Mens'.

 

[sojourner]

Thousands of liberal and conservative scholars have discussed the Bible's standards on sexual mores and gender. Sex between people of the same gender is condemned in the Bible, whether it is a contrivance for straights in prison or warfare or what we moderns would call "gay and lesbian".

No, that's incorrect. We moderns separate acts from orientations. As it should be, because as we've established, not all same-sex acts are carried out through a homosexual orientation. Certain kinds of sex acts were condemned in the bible. Orientations were not condemned in the bible. Because the ancients lacked the concept of orientation, they viewed all same-sex acts as "immoral." Thankfully, we've rectified that wrong thinking today.

again, the public executions were for PUBLIC sexual practices

so why condemn ALL same-sex practices on "biblical principle," then? Obviously, loving, consensual, committed and equitable same-sex practices don't fall into that mold.

The result of Draconian laws prohibiting sex activity was that it drove people of many preferences to be closeted for centuries. There was lack of freedom and personal suffering that should cause us all sorrow. However, I'm in certain ways for closeting if not abolishing certain behaviors. I see a modern society that is absolutely torn to pieces by porn, sexual profligacy--our children suffer.

Loving, committed, consensual and equitable same-sex practices are neither pornography nor profligacy.

When I meet a homosexual who claims to be a Christian, I'm led to question the sincerity of their faith.

When I meet a Christian who questions the faith of Christians based solely on their sexual orientation, I question that that person is truly Christian.

 

[Mitty]

Thousands of liberal and conservative scholars have discussed the Bible's standards on sexual mores and gender. Sex between people of the same gender is condemned in the Bible, whether it is a contrivance for straights in prison or warfare or what we moderns would call "gay and lesbian".

But as you well know the bible says nothing at all about sex between women or female homosexuality.