According to the Bible

[Unveiled Artist]

Sexual orientation is an orientation and not a behavior.

I know. I'm talking about "according to the Bible" not what we know now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can a straight person be homosexual and a gay person be heterosexual?

Does it make a difference?

BC definition not 21st century

There was no concept or definition of homo/heterosexual then. As we understand and know the concepts, they are so modern and new that even our understanding of heterosexual does not equally translate to the heterosexual that was known a couple hundred years ago.
So, the answer would be a confused yes and no. But mostly no because they just did not know those concepts or have an idea for them. It was just sex, there was no heteros or homos, just sex with men and sex with women.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was no concept or definition of homo/heterosexual then. As we understand and know the concepts, they are so modern and new that even our understanding of heterosexual does not equally translate to the heterosexual that was known a couple hundred years ago.
So, the answer would be a confused yes and no. But mostly no because they just did not know those concepts or have an idea for them. It was just sex, there was no heteros or homos, just sex with men and sex with women.

If homosexuality was a behavior back then (regardless if they knew it, used the word, or not) and to some it is seen like that today, couldn't a heterosexual person just turn homosexual if one has same-sex behavior and vis versa?

(This would ideally be answered from a believer's point of view; someone who believes homosexuality is a behavior and a sin and how they can apply the same logic for homosexuals with heterosexuals. Does it make a difference).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If homosexuality was a behavior back then (regardless if they knew it, used the word, or not) and to some it is seen like that today, couldn't a heterosexual person just turn homosexual if one has same-sex behavior and vis versa?

(This would ideally be answered from a believer's point of view; someone who believes homosexuality is a behavior and a sin and how they can apply the same logic for homosexuals with heterosexuals. Does it make a difference).

They didn't really view it like that. No one was labeled or considered hetero or homo back then. People just had sex. This is why we see things like "lying with a woman" or "lies with a man as he would a woman." If someone who lived then--someone that today we would consider heterosexual--had sex with a man, they would just consider it to have had sex with a man. There would be no questioning of whether he is gay or bi. He lied with a man, nothing more.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They didn't really view it like that. No one was labeled or considered hetero or homo back then. People just had sex. This is why we see things like "lying with a woman" or "lies with a man as he would a woman." If someone who lived then--someone that today we would consider heterosexual--had sex with a man, they would just consider it to have had sex with a man. There would be no questioning of whether he is gay or bi. He lied with a man, nothing more.

Yes. From a believer's perspective, it would be quite different. It's from a christian point of view. The idea is homosexuality is a behavior in the past. It's not a behavior today (how/when/why is irrelevant). However, it's still seen as a behavior. So, heterosexuals can be homosexuals and vis versa "based on behavior only."

Would a believer see it this way that heterosexuals can be homosexuals or is it only specific to homosexuals who choose to be based on his or her behavior as such?

Right or wrong, fiction or true, and silly or sound are irrelevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would a believer see it this way that heterosexuals can be homosexuals or is it only specific to homosexuals who choose to be based on his or her behavior as such?

That depends entirely on the denomination, and probably individual church. Some see homosexuality as a weakness and sin, comparable to if someone is ill, making the labels a little more fluid and less fixed. Some accept hetero/homo sexual, as is commonly understood today, without the back and forth that you ask of because of the "common usage" they employ with the terms. And then some would deny the homosexual, denouncing it as an illness and demonic possession that doesn't exist without that corruption.

 

[pearl]

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

I was referring to the betrayal of ones sexual orientation in an artificial environment, where the population is of one sex or prostitution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

It doesn't matter what "perspective" you are coming from at all. You are confusing to quite different things -- behavior and orientation.

Anybody can behave anyway they want -- according to or against their orientation. What they cannot do is change their orientation. Therefore, a heterosexual cannot BECOME a heterosexual, or vice-versa. It doesn't matter what they are DOING -- they cannot change WHO THEY ARE.

 

[sojourner]

I know. I'm talking about "according to the Bible" not what we know now.

Well, it would be "according to the understanding of the biblical writers." "According to the bible" lends the texts an air of "infallibility" and authority that isn't warranted here.

 

[Jainarayan]

NO, although it is possible for a straight person to have sexual relations with a member of their own sex, and for a homosexual person to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex.

And therein lies the misconception that gay people can become straight and straight people can "turn gay".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, it would be "according to the understanding of the biblical writers." "According to the bible" lends the texts an air of "infallibility" and authority that isn't warranted here.

For the sake of the question, infallibility and authority are irrelevant. It gets me side track from what I'm asking. According to biblical writers, homosexuality is a sin. Now, we know it is not. So, I'd assume according to the writers, homosexuals can be heterosexuals and vis versa because behavior determines who is homosexual and heterosexual.

Right or wrong, when, how, and why are irrelevant. I was just wondering believers thoughts about it since the words are thrown around without proper understanding of the contextual difference. Does that believer disagree there is such thing as sexual orientation? I know some things in the bible can be applied to today such as morals, but medical, legal, and in part culture?

 

[sojourner]

So, I'd assume according to the writers, homosexuals can be heterosexuals and vis versa because behavior determines who is homosexual and heterosexual.

According to the writers, human beings can engage in any number of sexual behaviors. But to them there was no "is" homo- or heterosexual. There was not that duality at all, or that designation. There were merely those men who had sex with men, and men who had sex with women. Men who had sex with men was frowned upon, not because it was a moral failing, but a cultural failing.

 

[sojourner]

So, I'd assume according to the writers, homosexuals can be heterosexuals and vis versa because behavior determines who is homosexual and heterosexual.

According to the writers, human beings can engage in any number of sexual behaviors. But to them there was no "is" homo- or heterosexual. There was not that duality at all, or that designation. There were merely those men who had sex with men, and men who had sex with women. Men who had sex with men was frowned upon, not because it was a moral failing, but a cultural failing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

According to the writers, human beings can engage in any number of sexual behaviors. But to them there was no "is" homo- or heterosexual. There was not that duality at all, or that designation. There were merely those men who had sex with men, and men who had sex with women. Men who had sex with men was frowned upon, not because it was a moral failing, but a cultural failing.

I know. I'm going by homosexuality as a behavior, and among others, it is a sin. Whether they knew or not, the question is the same.

I.e. killing is a sin. We don't need to know if they heard the word or not for them to know they "broke the law". Same with homosexuality-as a behavior.

(Devils advocate. I like asking questions outside my opinion. I learn better)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

NO, although it is possible for a straight person to have sexual relations with a member of their own sex, and for a homosexual person to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex.

It's possible. The idea is like killing. You kill so they call you a killer. You have same sex sex they call you a homosexual. Therefore, heterosexuals who engage in same sex sex are homosexual.

Not. Today's context. I can't figure another example that's not sensitive in nature.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Would Christians call a heterosexual a homosexual if the former engaged in same sex behavior?

To Christians who say homosexuality is a sin and behavior NOT a sexual orientation

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's possible. The idea is like killing. You kill so they call you a killer. You have same sex sex they call you a homosexual. Therefore, heterosexuals who engage in same sex sex are homosexual.

Not. Today's context. I can't figure another example that's not sensitive in nature.

Still incorrect. A homosexual is a person who DESIRES sex with a person of their own gender. It is quite possible to engage in it for other reasons than desire. Money for example, as in the male prostitutes of ancient Greece. Phaedo of Elis was one such, and was a prostitute because he was a slave, and forced into it. Socrates actually bought the young man's freedom, so that he need prostitute no longer -- and he didn't. In fact, a by Plato is named after him, the Phaedo dialogue, which describes the last hours of Socrates' life.

And again, there have been young men in prison who have provided homosexual favours to stronger men in return for protection in very tough circumstances. Yes, some of them have been homosexual, but not all. And the men who used (and protected) them, generally came out of prison and headed straight back towards women. They were not homosexual, they were availing themselves of the only available "convenience."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Still incorrect. A homosexual is a person who DESIRES sex with a person of their own gender. It is quite possible to engage in it for other reasons than desire. Money for example, as in the male prostitutes of ancient Greece. Phaedo of Elis was one such, and was a prostitute because he was a slave, and forced into it. Socrates actually bought the young man's freedom, so that he need prostitute no longer -- and he didn't. In fact, a by Plato is named after him, the Phaedo dialogue, which describes the last hours of Socrates' life.

A homosexual person is someone who is "attracted" to someone of their own gender. They/we don't desire people as in a magnet. It's specific to biological and physiological attraction. That's. It. Everything else: lust, sex, and all of that "could" be a result but that's not the orientation itself. Heterosexuals are still heterosexuals regardless if they desire sex or not. We (hetero/homo/etc) don't always want to have sex with people we are briefly attracted to.

I'm not sure where you got prostitutes from? relating to sexual orientation?

And again, there have been young men in prison who have provided homosexual favours to stronger men in return for protection in very tough circumstances. Yes, some of them have been homosexual, but not all. And the men who used (and protected) them, generally came out of prison and headed straight back towards women. They were not homosexual, they were availing themselves of the only available "convenience."

Homosexual favors?? homosexuality is not the appropriate word for any of this. Sexual orientation is not a behavior; so, what you're saying doesn't make sense.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A homosexual person is someone who is "attracted" to someone of their own gender. They/we don't desire people as in a magnet. It's specific to biological and physiological attraction. That's. It. Everything else: lust, sex, and all of that "could" be a result but that's not the orientation itself. Heterosexuals are still heterosexuals regardless if they desire sex or not. We (hetero/homo/etc) don't always want to have sex with people we are briefly attracted to.

I'm not sure where you got prostitutes from? relating to sexual orientation?



Homosexual favors?? homosexuality is not the appropriate word for any of this. Sexual orientation is not a behavior; so, what you're saying doesn't make sense.

I think we have to stop...you do not appear to be able to reason at anything other than a surface level, and that's not going to work in a discussion like this.

Look, let's try another tack -- suppose that you are a very serious vegetarian, a vegan even. Absolutely refuse to eat meat, get revolted by the thought. The year is 1889, and you've just been jettisoned from a ship in the high arctic, where you encounter a small settlement of Inuit people who can help you to survive until help comes (which could take many months). But all that's available to eat in this situation is seal meat, some fish. No plants grow up here, so sorry, there are no vegetables, no legumes, no pulses. nothing that you want to eat. You have two choices -- eat what's available, or starve to death. Up to you, make up your mind.

Now, when your rescue ship finally comes and gets you back home, and you go back to your vegan diet, must you forever claim that you are no longer a vegetarian because you once ate meat out of necessity? Or are you a vegan who had to go off course for a while out of sheer necessity?

I have, as we all have, sometimes not told the complete truth. In fact, I have lied. Am I a liar? Most of the time, no, not really. Donald Trump is a liar -- he can't tell the truth even when it does him good. But I'm not, most of the time, I tell the truth. If my bartender undercharged me, I always point it out and ask him to revise the bill.

But you brought up murder, too. Well, if I had ever killed somebody, then I would be -- by definition -- a murderer. I would be somebody who has killed another person unjustly and unlawfully.

This is the complexity that you are not seeing. We're human. We desire things, we do things, we regret things, we atone for things -- and these things are often in conflict with each other. What on earth biblical definition (or as you put it, "according to the Bible") has to do with any of that is beyond me. You'd be better off getting your mind out of the Bible and just looking at people.

 

[viole]

According to the Bible, people CAN be whatever they choose.

therefore, the Bible assumes we are all bisexual. For only a bisexual can believe we can choose at will. By definition.

when did you choose to be heterosexual (assuming you are), for instance? Was it a hard-to-take choice?

ciao

- viole