According to the Bible

[Unveiled Artist]

The bottom line is homosexual behavior, then and now, was/is more subject to compulsion, disease and suicide. This means it was/is not acceptable to nature and natural instinct, or else these would not be problems.

The difference is now is we have medicine, science and free marketing to hide or disguise this fact. In BC, they could not make the disease go away with a pill, so they had to be more strict for the sake of the collective. They could see the problems, and the wage of sin was death by nature.

As an analogy, for then and now, is say left wing culture decided it was natural to eat rocks, since chickens eat little stones to aid in the digestion of seeds; gizzard. Under natural conditions for humans, this will cause broken teeth and digestive issues. Everyone can see this, accept those who fool themselves following the fad.

One day science and technology figures out a way to quickly fix teeth and pump the stomach, so this behavior is now more sustainable. There are a number of people who will now be able to convince themselves this is natural, since now it appears to be sustainable. Man gaming nature or not was the difference, then and now.

To prove this, we could run a social experiment where we get rid of all the prosthesis used to disguise and sustain this behavior, so we can simulate the BC state of affairs. We then allow nature; green, to run its course and then make a judgment based on the results. We may need tough love to save people from themselves and the propaganda machine.

Transgender is not even possible without modern medicine gaming the natural system. This gaming of nature and natural allows many to fool themselves, while the medical industries turns a profit. The fad of many genders is just a modern marketing tool, that promotes the sale of new merchandise so many can outwardly pretend.

I

I would like to reply to this a bit if you'd like to continue the conversation? I don't want to take time to read for it to be cut short.

 

[rrobs]

Are you seriously telling us that saying that one should choose life implies that one can choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?

Here's what I said:

"Well there is,

Deut 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

We can choose whatever we want, but their are repercussions for whatever choice we make. Apparently it's a matter of life and death."​

I just quoted a verse from the scriptures, written to Israel, with a one sentence commentary. Taken at face value, where am I wrong? Do you not like that verse?

 

[shmogie]

What I "want" is for you to answer my original question. You can't, and we both know it, and your subsequent efforts to mask that fact is both obvious and disingenuous.

More to the point regarding "people CAN be whatever they choose," a gay person can no more choose to be heterosexual than I can choose to be Afro-Asian.

How do you know that? What science can you cite that is a theory that has scientific consensus? Even if your statement is true, it doesn't change what the Bible says.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's what I said:

"Well there is,

Deut 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

We can choose whatever we want, but their are repercussions for whatever choice we make. Apparently it's a matter of life and death."​

I just quoted a verse from the scriptures, written to Israel, with a one sentence commentary. Taken at face value, where am I wrong? Do you not like that verse?

The text explicitly calls for choosing one of two available options.

To suggest that sexual orientation is nothing other than an available option is simply ignorant.

 

[shmogie]

So are tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork or shrimp, rotating crops, and talking to menstruating women.
Know what isn't wrong according to the bible? Slavery, forced marriage, and beating wives/slaves. The bible even includes instructions on how to sell your own daughter off. Oh, and the bible also requires victims of rape to marry their attacker.
So personally, as a man of conscience, the bible has no use to me beyond toilet paper.

Based on the statement above, your familiarity with the Bible is highly limited, and confused.

The Bible is just a book, and if you use the pages of it to wipe your mouth as you state, doesn't bother me.

 

[sojourner]

We exist without needing to identify ourselves. That's like saying people with blue eyes didn't exist because there were (hypothetical) no person who identified with blue eyes back then.

People were gay, straight, tall, short, black, white, etc back then and today. There is no cut off point between BC and now. It's one continuous history and present day. Language is not near the point.

Of course there were, but my point is that no one knew about sexual orientation then. We do now, and it’s important that we know who we are. The OP conflates what we know now with what we knew then. It doesn’t work that way. Because, regardless of language, it’s all about how we identify. Some people have sex with same sex partners, but don’t identify as gay. There is no external standard for sexual identity. There is only how we identify.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course there were, but my point is that no one knew about sexual orientation then. We do now, and it’s important that we know who we are. The OP conflates what we know now with what we knew then. It doesn’t work that way. Because, regardless of language, it’s all about how we identify. Some people have sex with same sex partners, but don’t identify as gay. There is no external standard for sexual identity. There is only how we identify.

I did that on purpose. If homosexuality is a behavior then and orientation now how can the two be reconciled (to those who don't believe homosexuality is an orientation: surprisingly, many Christians don't. It's more a temptation to sin rather than an attraction in its own right.).

 

[sojourner]

I did that on purpose. If homosexuality is a behavior then and orientation now how can the two be reconciled (to those who don't believe homosexuality is an orientation: surprisingly, many Christians don't. It's more a temptation to sin rather than an attraction in its own right.).

Well, I think we have to go with science on this. The scientific and medical communities agree that it’s an orientation — not just a “behavior.” We reconcile that by understanding that the ancients knew little about biology and less about human psychology. They got it wrong. Same as we deal with the ancients who thought the earth was flat. They got it wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Which would mean homosexuals can be heterosexuals and vis versa.

I wonder how believers see this in respects that straight people can turn gay and gay people straight according to biblical definitions.

And thanks for understanding the question.

And I suppose that you'd be a homosexual and a heterosexual at the exact same time if you're in a threesome with both a man and a woman.

I thinks its important to differentiate between true a sexuality and actions within false circumstances, unnatural environment, where the sex act betrays its sexuality.

IF, a proposed, homosexuality and heterosexuality are nothing but behavior then there is NO sexuality to differentiate and NO sexuality to be betrayed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And I suppose that you'd be a homosexual and a heterosexual at the exact same time if you're in a threesome with both a man and a woman.

Well, going by sexual orientation being a behavior, most likely.

 

[Kenny]

I assume one would be educated to know the difference before forming an opinion against it?

against what?

One can be educated and still be wrong.
One can be uneducated but be full of wisdom.

Personally, opinions cease when God speaks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

against what?

One can be educated and still be wrong.
One can be uneducated but be full of wisdom.

Personally, opinions cease when God speaks.

Oh. Sorry.

I'm using "christians" instead of many, some, most, etc; irritates me for some reason. This only applies to whom have these opposing views.

Let me think.

The argument is: Homosexuality is a sin therefore homosexuals are sinners

This is incorrect literally. This view causes harm to other people: it has and still kills, abuses, and indoctrinates many people just by this point of view alone.

It would be healthier to change it to:

Same-sex sex is a sin and "any person" performing it is a sinner.

It 1, keeps the definition correct (homosexuality is a sexual orientation)

It 2, takes the homosexual person out of the picture (i.e. homosexuals are fixed to have same-sex sex)

It 3, get's pro-homosexual debaters off christians backs (ideally) when the words are used correctly before creating an opinion about it

And 4, the christian can still believe same-sex sex is a sin but at least the word is correctly defined and used

Point: Update the definition while still keeping the same opinion about the action. It saves people's lives.

I'm not sure if christians "get it". Now we say "love the sinner and hate the sin" but that still targets homosexuals in an indirect way. We need to see it differently without feeling we are compromising our beliefs for the sake of others wellbeing. We are getting there but still need need education.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

BC standards I mean the definition of homosexuality is a behavior rather than an orientation. It's a play on definitions/context in that a homosexual back them (someone practicing same-sex behavior) can be a heterosexual (those who practice opposite sex behavior) because the definition back then was based on behavior not orientation.

It's a slip on words and definitions because if a believer believes homosexuality is a sin because of behavior that doesn't exclude heterosexuality as a behavior. As a result, both gay can be straight and straight can be gay because it's based on behavior rather than orientation.

Since believers split the two words heterosexual normal and homosexual abnormal, then any hetero can be homo and homo can be hetereo. Which kind of makes it a bit off for believers because I don't know how they would feel if they knew they can change to be gay as a straight person.

One guy almost had a nervous break down as if I asked him what if he were a killer because their bible labeled the others a murderer.

Okay, then. You need to learn one thing that every historian must contend with -- you cannot just the past by the standards of the present.

You are setting up a very artificial argument by doing exactly that. Modern psychology knows that orientation is essentially innate, and not easily changed. And it also knows that we are all capable of behaving in ways that contradict our innate orientation. I have had sex with females -- I'm perfectly capable of it. I have little interest in every being bothered with it again, however, since it never satisfied my own needs in the way that sex with a male (and for 25 years, only one male) has.

I have also had sex with straight males, and though I was happy with it, and although we got to the usual "conclusion," I'm pretty sure that they weren't particularly thrilled.

You can go back to ancient Greece, and realize that many men had relationships with adolescent boys, that was usually about mentoring, training -- and yes, sometimes sexual activity. But not every man really wanted the sex part -- Socrates, for example, appears not to have been interested if you read Plato's "Symposium." I guess Socrates was heterosexually oriented enough (or not sexually oriented at all!) not to have wanted to bother.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

against what?

One can be educated and still be wrong.
One can be uneducated but be full of wisdom.

Personally, opinions cease when God speaks.

Wouldn't know. Never heard God speak. I only hear what people like you tell me God is saying, but I have no reason to suppose God would tell you what he wants me to know, so that you can post it on the internet.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay, then. You need to learn one thing that every historian must contend with -- you cannot just the past by the standards of the present.

You are setting up a very artificial argument by doing exactly that. Modern psychology knows that orientation is essentially innate, and not easily changed. And it also knows that we are all capable of behaving in ways that contradict our innate orientation. I have had sex with females -- I'm perfectly capable of it. I have little interest in every being bothered with it again, however, since it never satisfied my own needs in the way that sex with a male (and for 25 years, only one male) has.

I have also had sex with straight males, and though I was happy with it, and although we got to the usual "conclusion," I'm pretty sure that they weren't particularly thrilled.

You can go back to ancient Greece, and realize that many men had relationships with adolescent boys, that was usually about mentoring, training -- and yes, sometimes sexual activity. But not every man really wanted the sex part -- Socrates, for example, appears not to have been interested if you read Plato's "Symposium." I guess Socrates was heterosexually oriented enough (or not sexually oriented at all!) not to have wanted to bother.

Im not sure how this relates to the argument homosexuality is a behavior "according to some christians" and because so, homosexuals can be hetero and vis versa-using their argument alone.

Its history, whether its fact or fiction, and so forth is good to know. It's a good post. I'm not sure how it relates to the argument.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Im not sure how this relates to the argument homosexuality is a behavior "according to some christians" and because so, homosexuals can be hetero and vis versa-using their argument alone.

Its history, whether its fact or fiction, and so forth is good to know. It's a good post. I'm not sure how it relates to the argument.

I'm not in the slightest interested in what "some Christians" have to say about anything. They can be just as wrong (or right) as some Muslims, some Jews, some atheists, and some Humanists.

A man, who is primarily oriented to having sex with other men, is not -- when he has sex with a female -- suddenly heterosexual. He's still a homosexual, just acting out of character.

This is what it means to be human. We are not like ants and bees, nor even like higher animals like wolves and hyenas. Yes, we act according to our natures, like everything else, but we have developed the ability to default on our natures, to go outside of, or beyond what we are.

That is why your effort to stuff people into boxes and make them stay there isn't working.

 

[rrobs]

The text explicitly calls for choosing one of two available options.

To suggest that sexual orientation is nothing other than an available option is simply ignorant.

Did I say anything about sexual orientation?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not in the slightest interested in what "some Christians" have to say about anything. They can be just as wrong (or right) as some Muslims, some Jews, some atheists, and some Humanists.

A man, who is primarily oriented to having sex with other men, is not -- when he has sex with a female -- suddenly heterosexual. He's still a homosexual, just acting out of character.

This is what it means to be human. We are not like ants and bees, nor even like higher animals like wolves and hyenas. Yes, we act according to our natures, like everything else, but we have developed the ability to default on our natures, to go outside of, or beyond what we are.

That is why your effort to stuff people into boxes and make them stay there isn't working.

You get the point?

I already gave a clause since you guys take things to seriously. The point is still the same: it's irritating so don't get offense when I just say Christians.

It's not personal. Sheesh

 

[sojourner]

Well, going by sexual orientation being a behavior, most likely.

Sexual orientation is an orientation and not a behavior.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not in the slightest interested in what "some Christians" have to say about anything. They can be just as wrong (or right) as some Muslims, some Jews, some atheists, and some Humanists.

A man, who is primarily oriented to having sex with other men, is not -- when he has sex with a female -- suddenly heterosexual. He's still a homosexual, just acting out of character.

This is what it means to be human. We are not like ants and bees, nor even like higher animals like wolves and hyenas. Yes, we act according to our natures, like everything else, but we have developed the ability to default on our natures, to go outside of, or beyond what we are.

That is why your effort to stuff people into boxes and make them stay there isn't working.

If you're not a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin, you won't get it unless seeing it from a hypothetical example.

In the Bible, homosexuality is a behavior (right or wrong is irrelevant; I can care less)

Today we know it's a sexual orientation.

According to the Bible, a heterosexual can turn homosexual and vis versa because behaviors are choices not related to someone's sexual orientation.

From a Christian view only.

Can a homosexual become hetero and vis versa

What you're saying is irrelevant to the question.

Right or wrong,your personal feelings about the issue, is irrelevant to this. It's not a personal question.