Fear of homosexuality

[sojourner]

Jesus didn't speak out against child abuse, alcohol abuse, polygamy
and a host of other moral issues. His message wasn't about cataloging
human sins but bringing a message of hope. It was understood to all
Israeli society what was a sin and what was not.
We know about many sins through the Old Testament and the writings
of Jesus' own disciples and his brother.

And if Jesus DID condemn homosexuality specifically then the verse
would simply be ignored.
In Australia a football player quoted the bible about a litany of sins,
including homosexuality. He was stripped of his contracts and the case
is in the courts now. It seems that religious beliefs are now under attack.

It’s not religious beliefs, but hate under the guise of religious beliefs that are under attack. The man should be stripped.

 

[PruePhillip]

It’s not religious beliefs, but hate under the guise of religious beliefs that are under attack. The man should be stripped.

Read my profile below on American Gallup Poll results.
The man IS being stripped.
In fact read the history of the 20th Century. From about
1900's onward people thought we were seeing the end
of religious wars. Jesus never supported such wars.
But what we saw was the human toll of Nationalism,
Fascism and Marxism instead. Nearly a quarter of a
billion lives lost.

 

[PruePhillip]

Gee, like the texts have never, ever been revised since day one...

Sojourner, you need some substance to your POV.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, you need some substance to your POV.

Come off it. It’s a well-known fact that there have been revisions, editing, additions, and interpolations of the texts. I’m not saying anything new or out of line here. And that’s not to mention the translations, which are never exact.

 

[PruePhillip]

Come off it. It’s a well-known fact that there have been revisions, editing, additions, and interpolations of the texts. I’m not saying anything new or out of line here. And that’s not to mention the translations, which are never exact.

That's beside the point. The general consensus is that the bible has strict
moral codes governing people's lives, and this includes their sex lives.
They are linked - sex and morals. People who "challenge" sexual mores
such as polygamy, homosexuality, pederasty etc usually challenge every
other moral value as well.
See my profile below.
Am I wrong in suggesting that "sexual freedom" can be loosely defined as
freedom from love of commitment and children?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why are some of those who believe homosexuality is a sin so afraid of it?

Homosexuality in itself isn't a sin according to - as far as I am aware - any religion, so if we just think about homosexuality in general as a topic or homosexuals as a topic, why does it terrify some people so much?

It isn't the biggest sin, the most harmful sin, the most likely sin... It's one among others.

Where does the extreme fear come from and how could it be reduced among people who belive homosexuality is a sin, if we exclude the idea that the sin could be removed from the list or the people could become less religious on that issue.

It is possible to consider it a sin and even condemn it without feeling extreme fear, discomfort, frustration or anger when the topic is approached.

I accept people as my equals homosexual or not because Baha’u’llah says we are all ‘the fruits of one tree and the leaves of on branch’ so all humans are precious.

I don’t really know what you mean by anger or fear when the topic is approached because to me people are people and not to be judged. So I don’t get what you mean.

 

[Kenny]

Methinks you don’t think, which is why your post here is drivel.

Actually, quite accurate.

Sorry @sojourner. What I meant was that the previous poster was "actually, quite accurate". *embarrassed*

 

[Joshua Windus]

I'm not entirely sure why the adherents of religions that consider homosexuality a sin single it out. I almost think that part of the reaction of the older generations to homosexuality is do to the pressure they were put on to marry and have a family, and the assumption that homosexuals are less likely to have a biological one. When you spend several generations with extremely low survival rates, where caring for the next generation was of paramount importance to keep the population from dieing off, anything that's perceived to threaten this is looked down on. When one generation sacrifices so much to keep their children alive to perpetuate the next, there is the assumption that the same duties and care they gave will be repeated by their children for the next generation. I suppose its not a perfect argument, because even if people are sometimes pressured not to stay single, it doesn't carry the same stigma as being homosexual, but has the same result. Still, often a single person is assumed to be single because they haven't found the "right one", and that they still would get married if they did. Its different than if they just announced no interest in having a heterosexual relationship with biological children.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheist does not practice spirituality

That is something you do not and can not know. And in fact, a very fine philosopher has even written a book on the topic:
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

by
André Comte-Sponville,
Nancy Huston (Translation)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now, how can the clown you identify as a pastor possibly be a Christian ? Just because he says he is ? A man can call himself a fence post, but that doesn´t make him one.

The principles and teachings of Christianity are perfectly clear in the New Testament. Perversions of those into hate, incitement and evil are an abomination to God.

Christ said ¨ by their fruit you will know them ". Producing evil fruit makes it clear that they are not in fact Christians, just nefarious impersonators.

So, my words are based in hatred ? You better be able to prove that, ace.

I have repeated a hundred times that the only action authorized regarding homosexuals is their removal from the church rolls. I have at the same time that they are no different than any other person in how they should be treated otherwise. That isn´t hate, and I have never seen it done. It is following the rules of an organization, rules that the removed swore they would keep, thatś it.

In your lashing out, you must find a target for your own apparent hate. It seems to be the filter you primarily use for any discussion with Christians. If they agree with you, fine, if they follow the precepts that they must, they are drowning in hate toward you, and you reciprocate like a dog whose tail is pulled.

Perhaps, you simply don´t like people who speak in a direct manner, and don´t try to elicit your approval, or patronize you. You confuse that with hate. Too bad.

It is amusing that you rightfully decry people judging homosexuals as a group, then you do the exact same thing regarding Christians.

Can you spell hypocrisy ?

Can you spell "No True Scotsman." That's the argument you just presented.

A Christian is someone who professes belief in Jesus Christ. That they may have a different view than you of what that means does not make either of you non-Christian. It makes the Bible an unreliable source for getting at the "real truth." The very fact that there are so many versions of Christianity, many of whom hate one another to bits (and in the past burned each other at the stake) is the best evidence in the world of that sad fact.

 

[Spartan]

Gee... wonder, then, why the most accurate English translation uses the English term “male prostitute?” I guess you’re right and all the best translators are wrong.

I guess so. And I seriously doubt your "most" claim. Few, if any, would be more like it.

 

[Spartan]

Show me the quotations where Jesus spoke out against homosexuality.

No, Jesus didn’t give the Mosaic Law; ask any Jew.

Your arguments are typically weak and boring.

You're theology is fit only for the bottom of a bird cage.

 

[sojourner]

That's beside the point. The general consensus is that the bible has strict
moral codes governing people's lives, and this includes their sex lives.
They are linked - sex and morals. People who "challenge" sexual mores
such as polygamy, homosexuality, pederasty etc usually challenge every
other moral value as well.
See my profile below.
Am I wrong in suggesting that "sexual freedom" can be loosely defined as
freedom from love of commitment and children?

Homosexuality isn’t the same thing as “free love.” Homosexuals can be (and are) committed, married, loving, family-oriented, just as heterosexuals are.

 

[sojourner]

I guess so. And I seriously doubt your "most" claim. Few, if any, would be more like it.

That’s a lot of hubris coming from one who doesn’t speak the languages or have the scholastic expertise to do translational work. Oh well. None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[sojourner]

You're theology is fit only for the bottom of a bird cage.

There’s no accounting for taste, I suppose. Mores the pity for you.

 

[sojourner]

No, it doesn't mean prostitute.

"Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.

Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos (Lev 18:22)

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13)

In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation - forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. 'Arsene,' as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to "male." 'Koite' appears only twice in the New Testament, and means "bed," used in a sexual connotation:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery... (Rom 13:13)

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)

The two words combined, as Paul used them, put "male" and "bed" together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite."

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III

This (long) quote is from the Exodus Global Alliance — a group that (mistakenly) believes reparative therapy is legit, even though psychological science has proven otherwise and condemns the practice as harmful.

Nice try, though.

 

[Kenny]

It makes the Bible an unreliable source for getting at the "real truth." The very fact that there are so many versions of Christianity, many of whom hate one another to bits (and in the past burned each other at the stake) is the best evidence in the world of that sad fact.

Not really. As with Jesus, who had to correct interpretations of the real truth that was outlined very clearly, it is simply man who takes truth and creates their own versions of pseudo-truth - a sad fact but clearly outlined in the Bible on how men have that capacity.

We see the truth of love, but then see men change love into pedophilia and create the organization NAMBLA to declare that it is real love and should be accepted as such.

So it is man that changes truth and not the Bible being an unreliable source.

 

[Ponder This]

Why are some of those who believe homosexuality is a sin so afraid of it?

Homosexuality in itself isn't a sin according to - as far as I am aware - any religion, so if we just think about homosexuality in general as a topic or homosexuals as a topic, why does it terrify some people so much?

It isn't the biggest sin, the most harmful sin, the most likely sin... It's one among others.

Where does the extreme fear come from and how could it be reduced among people who belive homosexuality is a sin, if we exclude the idea that the sin could be removed from the list or the people could become less religious on that issue.

It is possible to consider it a sin and even condemn it without feeling extreme fear, discomfort, frustration or anger when the topic is approached.

I know a number of people who do not regard homosexuality as a sin and have amicable friendships with homosexuals who have privately voiced that they have had encounters where they experienced an inexplicable feeling of profound disgust towards a homosexual person. This seems to occur most often when they are the target of an unwanted homosexual overture.

This is different from the very few people I know who actually appear to express a fear of homosexuality. These people seem to have a feeling of insecurity about own sexuality (even when they are seemingly undeniably heterosexual). So I really do think we are talking about two different sorts of reaction (and some people do experience both).

As for those that I know who regard it as a sin, they simply believe it is wrong and more often than not feel they are unfairly ridiculed by others who do not share this belief. They complain about irreligious people and the impact homosexuality has on society. Because they believe it is a sin, they are concerned that their children find salvation and not be led into any sorts of activities associated with godlessness and that includes homosexuality.

So, yes, it is possible to simply regard it as a sin and condemn it without fear or discomfort or anger. But perhaps not without some feeling of frustration with a society that does not share that belief. In practice, however, I think people generally have a mixture of feelings about homosexuality rather than a single clear psychological disposition.

 

[Spartan]

This (long) quote is from the Exodus Global Alliance — a group that (mistakenly) believes reparative therapy is legit, even though psychological science has proven otherwise and condemns the practice as harmful.

Nice try, though.

Attacking the website when you can't defeat the material cited from it. Another inept effort on your part.

 

[Spartan]

That’s a lot of hubris coming from one who doesn’t speak the languages or have the scholastic expertise to do translational work. Oh well. None are so blind as those who will not see.

If you could see you wouldn't be an anti-Christianity plebe.