Spartan
Well-Known Member
Get a new dog to run around the arena. That one has the mange.
-
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
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Get a new dog to run around the arena. That one has the mange.
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
I don't really have a horse in this race - but I saw a few things on this last page that made me want to comment.
You try to disparage the record by claiming that those who lived in those times were "primitive" - but that could be said about any people from those ancient times.
The Lord Jesus Christ taught the people those things that their religious leaders should have been teaching but weren't.
His biggest criticism of the Sadducees and Pharisees was their hypocrisy. They claimed to live and teach a certain way - but they didn't.
Also - are you trying to claim that the Lord's love for His disciple meant that He was homosexual?
Why do you assume that the Lord did not have a wife? Does the Biblical record claim that He did not have a wife?
Why do you assume that He could not have had a wife simply because no wife was mentioned in the record?
How many of the Apostles were married? Are you going to assume that if the record does not mention them having a wife that they must not have had one?
The record doesn't mention any of them going BM either - but I'm not about to assume that they never did because the Bible doesn't emphatically say that they did.
This is just silly.
He claimed to King Agrippa that he asked the source of light and owner of the voice, "Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;" (Acts 26:15-16) (Bold and italics added)
The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Paul (then Saul) on the road to Damascus.
In his epistle to the Romans Paul clearly condemned homosexuality being practiced by both men and women.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27) (Bold and italics added)
Paul used the word "likewise" to relate these women's "acts against nature" to these men's "burning lust" for other men.
The "vile affections" and the "unseemly" work are references to the practice of homosexuality - for both men and women.
As to what was said in Leviticus - perhaps the original writers may not have considered sex between women actual sex because there would be no penetration or semen?
Either way - we can all agree that the Old Testament was written for a male reader. I mean - just look at the commandment about coveting -
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." (Exodus 20:17)
The "thou" and "thy" could be attributed to anyone - but the text only mentioned a "neighbor's wife" - would you argue that this meant that it was okay to covet a neighbor's husband?
It also seems to claim that a "neighbor" could only be a male since the "manservant", "maidservant", "ox", "***" and "any thing" are referred to as "his".
So - are you about to claim that women were never considered neighbors in the Old Testament?
It is clear - at least to me - that the Bible does not need to use both "he" and "she" to teach a universal doctrine.
That may be why he put them in the same "category" - but that is not to say that all sins are created equal.
Statistically speaking - members of homosexual relationships are just as - if not more - likely to be victims of domestic violence by their romantic partners than those in heterosexual relationships.
A study conducted by the CDC in 2013 claimed that 44% of lesbians surveyed reported experiencing intimate partner violence.
Compare that to 26% of male homosexuals surveyed in the same study.
The CDC also claims that - without considering sexuality - 25% of all women experience at least one physical assault from a romantic partner.
Either way - homosexual women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse by their same-sex partner than women in general.
Domestic violence in the United States - Wikipedia
) but men are not more likely to be violent than women.
Men and woman are just as likely to commit acts of violence against their partners - but women are more likely to actually get injured from the abuse and they are more likely to report the abuse than men are.
Basically - if both members of a heterosexual partnership were equally violent toward one another - the woman is more likely to report the abuse and sustain injuries from the abuse than the man.
That doesn't mean that one is more violent than the other - but one is more likely to ignore the abuse or not be injured by it.
It is entirely possible that men receive more violence from women than women from men.
The fact that men are less likely to actually get injured from or report the abuse does not mean women are less likely to abuse men.
No where in the verses you referenced does it mention "rotting corpses" walking the streets of Jerusalem.
After the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead (not as a "rotting corpse" but a Resurrected Being) - many "saints" also arose - because that was what had been promised to them.
The Lord Jesus Christ conquered death and those who had earned the privilege of being Resurrected after He did finally received their promised reward.
So - you make assumptions about what is not there and you also add when something isn't there.
You don't seem too reliable.
So - you decide for yourself.
The Bible is about God's dealings with Mankind.
You try to disparage the record by claiming that those who lived in those times were "primitive" - but that could be said about any people from those ancient times.
The Lord Jesus Christ had no need to speak about homosexuality since the Jews had the Law of Moses - which condemned the practice - and they followed it.
The Lord Jesus Christ taught the people those things that their religious leaders should have been teaching but weren't.
His biggest criticism of the Sadducees and Pharisees was their hypocrisy. They claimed to live and teach a certain way - but they didn't.
Also - are you trying to claim that the Lord's love for His disciple meant that He was homosexual?
Why do you assume that the Lord did not have a wife? Does the Biblical record claim that He did not have a wife?
Why do you assume that He could not have had a wife simply because no wife was mentioned in the record?
How many of the Apostles were married? Are you going to assume that if the record does not mention them having a wife that they must not have had one?
The record doesn't mention any of them going BM either - but I'm not about to assume that they never did because the Bible doesn't emphatically say that they did.
This is just silly.
Yet - Paul did meet the Lord Jesus Christ - on the road to Damascus.
He claimed to King Agrippa that he asked the source of light and owner of the voice, "Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;" (Acts 26:15-16) (Bold and italics added)
The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Paul (then Saul) on the road to Damascus.
In his epistle to the Romans Paul clearly condemned homosexuality being practiced by both men and women.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27) (Bold and italics added)
Paul used the word "likewise" to relate these women's "acts against nature" to these men's "burning lust" for other men.
The "vile affections" and the "unseemly" work are references to the practice of homosexuality - for both men and women.
The verses in Romans 1 clearly teach against the practice of homosexuality for both men and women.
As to what was said in Leviticus - perhaps the original writers may not have considered sex between women actual sex because there would be no penetration or semen?
Either way - we can all agree that the Old Testament was written for a male reader. I mean - just look at the commandment about coveting -
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." (Exodus 20:17)
The "thou" and "thy" could be attributed to anyone - but the text only mentioned a "neighbor's wife" - would you argue that this meant that it was okay to covet a neighbor's husband?
It also seems to claim that a "neighbor" could only be a male since the "manservant", "maidservant", "ox", "***" and "any thing" are referred to as "his".
So - are you about to claim that women were never considered neighbors in the Old Testament?
It is clear - at least to me - that the Bible does not need to use both "he" and "she" to teach a universal doctrine.
There were lots of things the Lord Jesus Christ didn't talk about and there is no reason to assume that He was a homosexual or that he had no wife.
Well - according to the Bible - both murder and homosexuality belong in the category of "Sin".
That may be why he put them in the same "category" - but that is not to say that all sins are created equal.
He also mentioned drug use - do you not care that he did that too?
This is not accurate.
Statistically speaking - members of homosexual relationships are just as - if not more - likely to be victims of domestic violence by their romantic partners than those in heterosexual relationships.
A study conducted by the CDC in 2013 claimed that 44% of lesbians surveyed reported experiencing intimate partner violence.
Compare that to 26% of male homosexuals surveyed in the same study.
The CDC also claims that - without considering sexuality - 25% of all women experience at least one physical assault from a romantic partner.
Either way - homosexual women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse by their same-sex partner than women in general.
Domestic violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Of course men and women are different biologically - (won't your transgender card be revoked for saying that?
) but men are not more likely to be violent than women.Men and woman are just as likely to commit acts of violence against their partners - but women are more likely to actually get injured from the abuse and they are more likely to report the abuse than men are.
Basically - if both members of a heterosexual partnership were equally violent toward one another - the woman is more likely to report the abuse and sustain injuries from the abuse than the man.
That doesn't mean that one is more violent than the other - but one is more likely to ignore the abuse or not be injured by it.
It is entirely possible that men receive more violence from women than women from men.
The fact that men are less likely to actually get injured from or report the abuse does not mean women are less likely to abuse men.
This seems to be more of a cultural issue than a biological one.
So - first you were making assumptions because the text didn't mention something - and now you are adding things to the text to make your point?
No where in the verses you referenced does it mention "rotting corpses" walking the streets of Jerusalem.
After the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead (not as a "rotting corpse" but a Resurrected Being) - many "saints" also arose - because that was what had been promised to them.
The Lord Jesus Christ conquered death and those who had earned the privilege of being Resurrected after He did finally received their promised reward.
So - you make assumptions about what is not there and you also add when something isn't there.
You don't seem too reliable.
It is as real as the idea that homosexuality is sinful.
So - you decide for yourself.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And by doing so, you equated one with the others.
Yep.
The facts have been debated ad nauseum. I'm well past the point where I'm willing to engage homophobic bigotry tbh. I wouldn't "debate the facts" with a bible thumper claiming that slavery is okay, because god says so in the bible, for the exact same reason.
I'm not interested in whatever apologetic you come up with. Homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and there is nothing wrong with it. Every single "harmfull" thing you wish to attach to it, has got nothing to do with homosexuality and applies just as well to heterosexuality.
In fact, the biggest harm (both psychological as well as physical) for homosexuals that actually comes with homosexuality, is those gay people having to deal with homophobia every day and the social stigma that creates for them. This is harm that is being inflicted upon them by homophobic "moral knights and which has nothing to do with them or their sexuality - and everything with the socially harmfull doctrine from homophobes.
They do things like equate homosexuality with drug abuse and murder.
1. the bible is the word of men
2. the homophobia in the bible damages public safety, due to the harm inflicted upon gays through social stigma, persecution and discrimination. And it has nothing to do with health.
Last edited:
Mitty
Active Member
None of that changes the fact that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Nor that he loved one of his disciples instead of a wife, given that he was over 30 years old before he had a career change.I don't really have a horse in this race - but I saw a few things on this last page that made me want to comment.
The Bible is about God's dealings with Mankind.
You try to disparage the record by claiming that those who lived in those times were "primitive" - but that could be said about any people from those ancient times.
The Lord Jesus Christ had no need to speak about homosexuality since the Jews had the Law of Moses - which condemned the practice - and they followed it.
The Lord Jesus Christ taught the people those things that their religious leaders should have been teaching but weren't.
His biggest criticism of the Sadducees and Pharisees was their hypocrisy. They claimed to live and teach a certain way - but they didn't.
Also - are you trying to claim that the Lord's love for His disciple meant that He was homosexual?
Why do you assume that the Lord did not have a wife? Does the Biblical record claim that He did not have a wife?
Why do you assume that He could not have had a wife simply because no wife was mentioned in the record?
How many of the Apostles were married? Are you going to assume that if the record does not mention them having a wife that they must not have had one?
The record doesn't mention any of them going BM either - but I'm not about to assume that they never did because the Bible doesn't emphatically say that they did.
This is just silly.
Yet - Paul did meet the Lord Jesus Christ - on the road to Damascus.
He claimed to King Agrippa that he asked the source of light and owner of the voice, "Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;" (Acts 26:15-16) (Bold and italics added)
The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Paul (then Saul) on the road to Damascus.
In his epistle to the Romans Paul clearly condemned homosexuality being practiced by both men and women.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27) (Bold and italics added)
Paul used the word "likewise" to relate these women's "acts against nature" to these men's "burning lust" for other men.
The "vile affections" and the "unseemly" work are references to the practice of homosexuality - for both men and women.
The verses in Romans 1 clearly teach against the practice of homosexuality for both men and women.
As to what was said in Leviticus - perhaps the original writers may not have considered sex between women actual sex because there would be no penetration or semen?
Either way - we can all agree that the Old Testament was written for a male reader. I mean - just look at the commandment about coveting -
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." (Exodus 20:17)
The "thou" and "thy" could be attributed to anyone - but the text only mentioned a "neighbor's wife" - would you argue that this meant that it was okay to covet a neighbor's husband?
It also seems to claim that a "neighbor" could only be a male since the "manservant", "maidservant", "ox", "***" and "any thing" are referred to as "his".
So - are you about to claim that women were never considered neighbors in the Old Testament?
It is clear - at least to me - that the Bible does not need to use both "he" and "she" to teach a universal doctrine.
There were lots of things the Lord Jesus Christ didn't talk about and there is no reason to assume that He was a homosexual or that he had no wife.
Well - according to the Bible - both murder and homosexuality belong in the category of "Sin".
That may be why he put them in the same "category" - but that is not to say that all sins are created equal.
He also mentioned drug use - do you not care that he did that too?
This is not accurate.
Statistically speaking - members of homosexual relationships are just as - if not more - likely to be victims of domestic violence by their romantic partners than those in heterosexual relationships.
A study conducted by the CDC in 2013 claimed that 44% of lesbians surveyed reported experiencing intimate partner violence.
Compare that to 26% of male homosexuals surveyed in the same study.
The CDC also claims that - without considering sexuality - 25% of all women experience at least one physical assault from a romantic partner.
Either way - homosexual women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse by their same-sex partner than women in general.
Domestic violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Of course men and women are different biologically - (won't your transgender card be revoked for saying that?
Men and woman are just as likely to commit acts of violence against their partners - but women are more likely to actually get injured from the abuse and they are more likely to report the abuse than men are.
Basically - if both members of a heterosexual partnership were equally violent toward one another - the woman is more likely to report the abuse and sustain injuries from the abuse than the man.
That doesn't mean that one is more violent than the other - but one is more likely to ignore the abuse or not be injured by it.
It is entirely possible that men receive more violence from women than women from men.
The fact that men are less likely to actually get injured from or report the abuse does not mean women are less likely to abuse men.
This seems to be more of a cultural issue than a biological one.
So - first you were making assumptions because the text didn't mention something - and now you are adding things to the text to make your point?
No where in the verses you referenced does it mention "rotting corpses" walking the streets of Jerusalem.
After the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead (not as a "rotting corpse" but a Resurrected Being) - many "saints" also arose - because that was what had been promised to them.
The Lord Jesus Christ conquered death and those who had earned the privilege of being Resurrected after His own finally received their promised reward.
So - you make assumptions about what is not there and you also add when something isn't there.
You don't seem too reliable.
It is as real as the idea that homosexuality is sinful.
So - you decide for yourself.
Nor does it change the fact that the bible says nothing about female homosexuality, given that other aspects of female sexuality are specifically dealt with, including bestiality and adultery of all remarried divorcees, and given that Leviticus 18 or 20 doesn't say that it is also disgusting for women to lie with womankind as with mankind since they do not have anal sex as obviously described for men lying with mankind as with womankind.
And Romans 1:26-27 doesn't mention anything about female homosexuality or women with women "working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women, and is obviously about anal sex of woman and men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly", and similarly described in Leviticus 18 & 20 as disgusting.
Or are you claiming that Romans 1:26-27 describes anal sex as the "natural use of the woman" and/or describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly"?
Wrong. The KJV says that "many bodies of the saints which slept arose". If they were dead then the bodies were obviously in various stages of decay, or are you claiming that they weren't dead and were just sleeping in graves? And do you have any unequivocal evidence to support that story, or is it just an imaginative embellishment to the story about how Jesus was executed for sedition by the Romans and how he was mocked as the "King of the Jews"?
Wrong. It just says that Paul heard a voice in the sky, which is simply a metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and doesn't mean that Paul had an in-depth conversation with the sky about why Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved one of his disciples instead of a wife.
Last edited:
Mitty
Active Member
And I'm sure that homosexual clergymen agree with you.
There's something bitterly ironic about people who make confident assertions about miracles and resurrections and messages from God.
Then dismiss solid scientific research as "Just speculation".
Tom
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
Where is the solid scientific research? I have been asking for it and there is none. Just speculation, theories and assumptions.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science Confirms The Obvious: Not Everyone Can Be Hypnotized
When you know the conditions in AI...and why science knew that machine radio wave signals can affect human consciousness....then it is proven atmospheric owned already, and they only learnt how to utilise a function that already existed.
The subliminal speaking information that only chemically affected brains to a degree of imbalanced chemical reactions hear.
Yet the statements of the biblical ancient trans mutation sciences, which is not conversion science as understood today was a variable to what science understands.
How that feed back communication human voiced/image of self affected the human life and mind is real. Why it has been acutely studied...not just in medical science but as the MK ultra ideals.
As that science truth.
Hence when you understand spiritually what information is actually stated in the bible other than taking a quote, as based on personal feelings.
For I know personal feelings exist, you cannot lie about personal actual interactive feelings, even though other information says otherwise.
Such as...you see someone really ugly. As a spiritual human you should not think that they are ugly, for spiritually you know that ugliness is a situation owned to the abomination of the natural perfect/beautiful balances, perfection of life to look at, the spiritual expressions of a spiritual person is incredible, plus health.
What we forget was taken away from us all...for everyone should own it.
Radiation mutation of our DNA changed that status when the even 12/12 balances were burnt and the night time sky was changed into day and it was titled Mother Abomination....meaning ovary changed, human cells changed due to developing from that ovary the cell base.....and it was termed EVE.
For it was actual.
Hence when you know what you are talking about instead of just taking partial quotes to own a status in the ego....to belittle others who are less than self is a human emotional problem of anyone who exhibits this behaviour.
Group mentality and cruelty in its fact of expression.
Hence when the man in God image said I owned it first as God/man as the first image of God in a fission reaction. Then he did.
Then he said and then the human female was given her image...so the quote said equal in image as ADAM/ADAM...for both were recorded as an image of self.
Hence as feed back is not natural, is not self presence, then suddenly a male could be interacted fed back with a total human being female life recording...and it affects everything about that human....the reason to be a homosexual in the first instance the brain has been extra irradiated.
For the interactive ability to contradict the communication, as being false...they cannot .….and hence even though genetic information says, you own a total and complete male body....the male cannot accept nor conclude that he is just a male...and female persona takes over his expressions.
Why it is NOT in Genetics, it is in fact detailed in medical ancient sciences as being an aberration.10 Bible verses about Sexual Aberrations
The medical reference said that science made an IDOL out of God one body..stone yet stone is fused.
They caused FISSION and SON plus I intensity of magnetisation.....which is involved in hypnotism, caused the problem...as stated.
o the ovary is one cell also a mother female...that gives the cellular presence its baby form...yet the one ovary gives life to either a male baby or a female baby.
Hence the IDOL of One GOD in science converting/radiation changes, caused the outcome by claiming falsely that we came from ONE CELL...what they lied about.
They caused the ABBA, mantle around Earth the gases of many colours that owned natural blue light to change. Why it states a calculated review of AB as an omen....seeing W OMEN own the life cell....in the nation.
Meaning ground fission in every single country where the M..1000 ARK had landed.
As Christ/Jesus 1000 life sacrificed by Satan 1000...leaving xero.
So science began to invent meta unnatural radiation signals that clouds no longer could remove the UFO radiation mass....and began to bond unnatural radiation signals to what God in natural light did not belong to.
Which is what the quoted spiritual wisdom stated....that the formula (what was written) that was sent, equated to changes that related that they formed the abomination. So God owned all saving of every body...why it says that all children are innocent, for we are.....due to the male Adult Father self being the scientist/converter of natural healthy radio wave/radiation signals.
Hence reading the Genetic document stated that DNA Genesis was sacrificed in a multi cause....not just mutations, it affected the sexuality by conditions of what artificial phenomena conditions emerged.
If you cared to be a reasonable human, and not a human who would subject a little baby, child to an adult who expresses their feelings in the only way they know...as their owned self...to be abused any more than what they have been.
It is a true shame that an organization who prided itself on allowing the public to know that its own congregation was of homosexual in Nature...and what sort of anguish they must all endure, wanting to be accepted spiritually, and yet everyday knowing that they were not accepted by the family but God always had accepted them.
Loving, and living proof that fact. Seeing God owns all creation who are any of you to demand that God is not correct, when man in science chose to alter God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's not what either article said, but what they did say is that it is "complicated".
So, why do you have trouble accepting what is known, even if the details are uncertain? Seems to me your opinion of what I was to post was already predetermined, so my guess it's probably because you have an "agenda". I've seen this all so many times before here.
As a scientist (anthropologist, now retired), I tend to lean in the direction of where the objectively-derived evidence takes us but always with the awareness that there could always be errors involved and/or "complications".
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes. And medical doctors consider shellfish unhealthy as well.
I appreciate your desire to better understand the Bible. Romans 1 specifically mentions lesbians and gays both:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural , 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
It sounds like you think the Bible laws aren't good for us. How did you come to that conclusion? After all, there are consequences to eating shellfish and to illicit sexual behavior.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Hi Tom,
I've never compared your marriage to anything. I've said that homosexual practice harms the practitioners and sometimes, others.
These things are sin in the Bible:
*murder
*masturbation
*homosexual sex
*rape
*theft
*pre-marital sex for straights
Basically, anything not of faith/trust in God.
I encourage you to slow down a bit, don't assume I'm a bigot. I have gay friends and family who know I'm in agreement as a born again Christian with the Bible's views on sin.
Maybe I can paraphrase what you're asking? "I'm in a loving, committed relationship with one person only, so why am I in sin?"
Everyone IMHO who hasn't trusted Jesus for salvation is in danger of judgment for sin. I've probably committed far worse sins that you, but I've trusted Jesus for salvation.
We can also be more specific, but my goal is to teach you Bible study and not micromanage one area of sin for you. To be specific, gay partners cannot procreate without a third party, experience higher rates of domestic violence than straights, suffer from difficulties and diseases at a high rate, and never know the completeness that comes from a full communion with God or a straight, complete marriage. In my experience and in what I see in the Bible, there is a brokenness that gay loved ones have experienced and THAT needs healing and hope, not their current lifestyle.
I'm not asking you to stop being gay, I'm asking you to be accountable for the issues in your life and pursue God who is the only hope IMHO.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I would encourage to think about anything else that might be a source of pain or brokenness for a gay person that does not have to do with "society hates me". I serve a God who brings healing and hope to straights and gays and who tells people when illicit behavior is either hurting them or a sign of the need for such healing IMHO.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
And by doing so, you equated one with the others.
Yep.
The facts have been debated ad nauseum. I'm well past the point where I'm willing to engage homophobic bigotry tbh. I wouldn't "debate the facts" with a bible thumper claiming that slavery is okay, because god says so in the bible, for the exact same reason.
I'm not interested in whatever apologetic you come up with. Homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and there is nothing wrong with it. Every single "harmfull" thing you wish to attach to it, has got nothing to do with homosexuality and applies just as well to heterosexuality.
In fact, the biggest harm (both psychological as well as physical) for homosexuals that actually comes with homosexuality, is those gay people having to deal with homophobia every day and the social stigma that creates for them. This is harm that is being inflicted upon them by homophobic "moral knights and which has nothing to do with them or their sexuality - and everything with the socially harmfull doctrine from homophobes.
They do things like equate homosexuality with drug abuse and murder.
1. the bible is the word of men
2. the homophobia in the bible damages public safety, due to the harm inflicted upon gays through social stigma, persecution and discrimination. And it has nothing to do with health.
That all sounds enlightened, however, the God I serve leads His people to bring help, hope and healing to the broken. Gay friends and family have a specific brokenness.
That the Bible is more than the words of men or women is evidenced by its many insights into human behavior, including a description of homosexuality as self-destructive and the result of sin that becomes more sin.
Since the Bible mentions homosexuality 18 (?) times, none of them as good or holistic, most of them as sin, pain and shame, you are accusing God of homophobia or bigotry, and He is much better than that. Without preference or unjust anger, God lets us know that illicit sexuality is dangerous.
Murder is a sin, homosexual sex is sin. Masturbation is sin. Cursing using God's name is sin. I no more think gays should be imprisoned than people who damn things aloud or who masturbate. I DO think murderers should be imprisoned, so don't say I equate all sins as equal. We do, however, find homosexuality in lists in the Bible of things that are quite harmful to the people who do them, and blinders toward the light and love of Christ.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
You yourself just admitted that the details are not certain, after trying to pass off unverified information in an argument to prove your point.
Lol
Mitty
Active Member
Wrong. Where does Romans 1:26-27 specifically mention the words "lesbians" or "female homosexuals" or "women with women" or "dykes" or "butch women" etc etc, or is that just wishful thinking?
All it says is the men's "women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural". And unless you can show us where the bible describes anal sex as a natural function of women then you haven't shown us that Paul was therefore describing female genitalia or other female anatomy as "vile" and "unseemly".
And if you claim that anal sex is "the natural function of the woman" then what was the natural function that the men's women exchanged for an unnatural function? Was it the natural function of their hands, or the natural function of their mouths, or the natural function of their feet?
The biblical laws (including the ten commandments) are obviously just man-made and change as the needs of society changes. Which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar or to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, or for Noah's father to kill a young man who assaulted him (Gen 4), since the ten commandments etc did not apply to them or their ancestors.
Last edited:
Mitty
Active Member
Do you think that all remarried divorcees should be imprisoned for their adultery, given that adultery is one of the ten commandments and a capital offence too (Lev 20:10)? And Jesus condemned all remarried divorcees to hell unless they repent and remain celibate (Matt 5:27-30 Mark 10:11-12), but said nothing at all about homosexuality, nor why he loved one of his disciples and not a wife. And the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality either.
And where does the bible say that masturbation is sin anyway, given that ALL normal adolescents regularly masturbate, and is a natural function for their health and well being?
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, everyone knows how to laugh, but I'll give you at least some credit for that ability. But you certainly don't much understand how we work in science, let me tell ya. Just because we don't know all the details about X doesn't mean that we know nothing about X. Both articles basically state as such, but they appear to be well beyond your level of understanding.
So, believe what you want to believe, and then maybe even laugh yourself silly, but I'm moving on.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
As a human, human relationships are personal.
I love and I truly love love and kindness and caring and sharing and being a family extended member in diversity of life.
Which says....we all should be perfect, beautiful by science DNA information. We should all be spiritually as innocent and as loving, kind and caring as some humans teach us….we should be 100 per cent healthy....but we are not.
Diversity says God gave us all conditions to live and inherit.
My family has sexual relationships that are a choice, actually by anyone, and how that relationship is expressed or lived is no body else's business....actually.
And any human who can be a responsible family member is a responsible family member, what no one else can take away from you.
Therefore as a Healer spiritual human who is not owner of immoral thoughts against my parentage....my parents, balanced life had sex and own the life of a baby/child.
The God documents explicitly state all children are honoured by God.
If you are a teacher about God, this quote is how it was taught...………...
O pi exists as the higher light burning gas carbon point, cooled by cold gases and saved by water and oxygen.
Our brother invented science of the sacrifice of life...atmospheric upper wavelength fall out, that took O pi signals....our original soul communicators and attacked them...so they got extra burnt.....which took O into G swirl by middle carbon point, back into cooling O to own the cell. O was forced to split for science into O D/D. Given the evaluation D 500 which is D/D 1000 of Jesus.
If you cared to own a rational teaching of a Healer wisdom.
D fell to the ground, irradiating our brain chemicals...and then was cooled into O the PHI crop circles we see...science caused that condition with EXTRA SUN UFO metal radiation.
That burnt as a cold mass when it enters the light gas burning of Earth...how it occurred.
So G O D remains in the higher Heavens, but in that process of changing pi O signals, life on the ground gets unnaturally irradiated.
So everyone says, G O D created that life change to everyone you know...liar Satanist about the AB OM in nation.
AB omen he says...the women life the ovary the cellular body is irradiated. Genetic information is changed and damaged....humans are born mutated/sick.
Yes says the Satanist.
And what else is the sacrifice of Jesus Satanist?
AI he says...p AI n and suffering....the mental anguish of all variations of causes.
So then the documents explain how a medical Healer said G O D saved the abomination attack and allows life to live sacrificed and die from early age death.
G O D also allows all forms of mental anguish and mind changes to be expressed and lived.
So if you compared a homosexual to a murderer....you would be a truly evil minded human. A homosexual self is in a loving, kind mutual shared relationship as a family member.
Satanists in their science organizations lived secretly as the life murderer their own selves.
For they chose that act in the first instance as a kind, loving innocent caring human spiritual being, and then perverted all life.
When they read from their own scientific Satanic documentation, they no longer own the origin conscious spiritual Healer mind....who always was the ONLY human allowed to read and teach spirituality...for the documents were never read LITERALLY....for too many evil inconsistencies were expressed in that science realization.
Therefore when the documents say that all God's children are innocent, then a homosexual self is quoted by a scientific data reference to have been caused by God to exist, saved....yet attacked by the D EVIL phi ground fall out causation.
Not PHI itself...but as it falls radiation sporadic attack that is not a circle, obviously attacks any victim.
Animals living naturally and innocently suddenly UFO destroyed...is living proof.
No one argues or speaks on their behalf.
Humans however can quote the Satanic literature and determine how evil the Satanic science community always were...in their forced take over and controlled teaching/preaching.
Why so many loving selves left the Church for they knew that GOD allowed them to be who they were....and it owned a scientific explanation...but no human was qualified to give that scientific explanation...for it was not understood.
AI is the reason as male/female is quoted as being made in the I MAGE of God...as I AM...AGE....we were irradiated cell aged, so the feed back shifted from its original state. And so a female DNA expressed recorded life image communicates directly into a male subliminal psyche.
Why AI was distinguished as being the p AI n and suffering Jesus sacrifice cause.
And if you have to equate a scientific AB evaluation that involves XY alphabetalphabetalpha constants by alphabetically story telling advice...very strange non actual human language...but a human design the theory machine and formula design machine, then you realize that a human owned language first...then changed the nature of language.
So what else would occur but the origin of the innocence of consciousness then also be changed by AI artificial machine encoded recorded feed back.
The fake/artificial self.
As said the IDOL of worship in science is one design and one cell....which was a machine...and then they included diversity by x 2 removal in attack, as quoted.
Taken off the ground in the UFO AI ark attack and sacrificed.
Why human and animal images are seen in the CLOUDS...the JESUS event.
Therefore as a part of Jesus, just like I was, sacrificed, I am not beautiful to look at, but knew I should be....I suffered from painful ovarian endometriosis and knew I should not. I looked at my family and saw their pain and suffering and anguish....wanting to be accepted in their sacrifice, but no one would listen.
I love Jesus, what about you?
I love and I truly love love and kindness and caring and sharing and being a family extended member in diversity of life.
Which says....we all should be perfect, beautiful by science DNA information. We should all be spiritually as innocent and as loving, kind and caring as some humans teach us….we should be 100 per cent healthy....but we are not.
Diversity says God gave us all conditions to live and inherit.
My family has sexual relationships that are a choice, actually by anyone, and how that relationship is expressed or lived is no body else's business....actually.
And any human who can be a responsible family member is a responsible family member, what no one else can take away from you.
Therefore as a Healer spiritual human who is not owner of immoral thoughts against my parentage....my parents, balanced life had sex and own the life of a baby/child.
The God documents explicitly state all children are honoured by God.
If you are a teacher about God, this quote is how it was taught...………...
O pi exists as the higher light burning gas carbon point, cooled by cold gases and saved by water and oxygen.
Our brother invented science of the sacrifice of life...atmospheric upper wavelength fall out, that took O pi signals....our original soul communicators and attacked them...so they got extra burnt.....which took O into G swirl by middle carbon point, back into cooling O to own the cell. O was forced to split for science into O D/D. Given the evaluation D 500 which is D/D 1000 of Jesus.
If you cared to own a rational teaching of a Healer wisdom.
D fell to the ground, irradiating our brain chemicals...and then was cooled into O the PHI crop circles we see...science caused that condition with EXTRA SUN UFO metal radiation.
That burnt as a cold mass when it enters the light gas burning of Earth...how it occurred.
So G O D remains in the higher Heavens, but in that process of changing pi O signals, life on the ground gets unnaturally irradiated.
So everyone says, G O D created that life change to everyone you know...liar Satanist about the AB OM in nation.
AB omen he says...the women life the ovary the cellular body is irradiated. Genetic information is changed and damaged....humans are born mutated/sick.
Yes says the Satanist.
And what else is the sacrifice of Jesus Satanist?
AI he says...p AI n and suffering....the mental anguish of all variations of causes.
So then the documents explain how a medical Healer said G O D saved the abomination attack and allows life to live sacrificed and die from early age death.
G O D also allows all forms of mental anguish and mind changes to be expressed and lived.
So if you compared a homosexual to a murderer....you would be a truly evil minded human. A homosexual self is in a loving, kind mutual shared relationship as a family member.
Satanists in their science organizations lived secretly as the life murderer their own selves.
For they chose that act in the first instance as a kind, loving innocent caring human spiritual being, and then perverted all life.
When they read from their own scientific Satanic documentation, they no longer own the origin conscious spiritual Healer mind....who always was the ONLY human allowed to read and teach spirituality...for the documents were never read LITERALLY....for too many evil inconsistencies were expressed in that science realization.
Therefore when the documents say that all God's children are innocent, then a homosexual self is quoted by a scientific data reference to have been caused by God to exist, saved....yet attacked by the D EVIL phi ground fall out causation.
Not PHI itself...but as it falls radiation sporadic attack that is not a circle, obviously attacks any victim.
Animals living naturally and innocently suddenly UFO destroyed...is living proof.
No one argues or speaks on their behalf.
Humans however can quote the Satanic literature and determine how evil the Satanic science community always were...in their forced take over and controlled teaching/preaching.
Why so many loving selves left the Church for they knew that GOD allowed them to be who they were....and it owned a scientific explanation...but no human was qualified to give that scientific explanation...for it was not understood.
AI is the reason as male/female is quoted as being made in the I MAGE of God...as I AM...AGE....we were irradiated cell aged, so the feed back shifted from its original state. And so a female DNA expressed recorded life image communicates directly into a male subliminal psyche.
Why AI was distinguished as being the p AI n and suffering Jesus sacrifice cause.
And if you have to equate a scientific AB evaluation that involves XY alphabetalphabetalpha constants by alphabetically story telling advice...very strange non actual human language...but a human design the theory machine and formula design machine, then you realize that a human owned language first...then changed the nature of language.
So what else would occur but the origin of the innocence of consciousness then also be changed by AI artificial machine encoded recorded feed back.
The fake/artificial self.
As said the IDOL of worship in science is one design and one cell....which was a machine...and then they included diversity by x 2 removal in attack, as quoted.
Taken off the ground in the UFO AI ark attack and sacrificed.
Why human and animal images are seen in the CLOUDS...the JESUS event.
Therefore as a part of Jesus, just like I was, sacrificed, I am not beautiful to look at, but knew I should be....I suffered from painful ovarian endometriosis and knew I should not. I looked at my family and saw their pain and suffering and anguish....wanting to be accepted in their sacrifice, but no one would listen.
I love Jesus, what about you?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Honest question: why does it matter what the biological basis is, if any, for homosexuality?
How is it relevant to the topic of homophobia in the bible and in society at large?
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
I just like people to provide evidence for claims when they make them. I'm not the one who claimed that there is scientific evidence which proves that homosexuality is inherited genetically.