God And Homosexuality

[sojourner]

More whataboutism. I am in fact critical of divorce, if you must know, but I don't know why you should have heard of it.

Yet, you're obviously outspoken against something Jesus is tacit about, and something that the bible says nothing about. But I forget: You're Muslim, which is typically very anti-homosexuality. In the Unite States, neither "resource" need matter much where legislation is concerned. Be that as it may, homosexuality is not considered to be illegal here; marriage is open to homosexuals; many church bodies are in support of both homosexuality as a valid expression of human sexuality and homosexual marriage. AND, the Supreme Court just passed legislation saying that homosexuals could not be discriminated against in the workplace, based on their orientation. The pendulum is swinging surely toward inclusion, tolerance, reason, and human rights. And that's a good thing.

 

[sojourner]

Did our aborigines cover themselves when they arrived here over 50,000 years ago?

My "aborigines" are my business...

 

[sojourner]

I'm actually referring to the hundreds of years, recently, that people found it only appropriate to cover themselves. The decision to not cover is new.

There are a lot of unhealthy and repressive attitudes toward human sexuality that appear to be based upon nothing more than repressive "morals." Those attitudes create problems for mental and social health. They have been shown to contribute to child sexual abuse (and sexual violence among adults, too), and systemic and sexual violence against women. We will never improve as a human family until we get past these unhealthy attitudes, begin to see women as equal to men, and female bodies as honorable rather than shameful, and learn to be more open and accepting with regard to differences in human sexuality, and what is considered to be normal and healthy. We need to learn to have open conversation, so that we are able to call violence out for what it is, and begin to teach our children healthy attitudes and responsibility toward sex and sex acts. Right now, science is way beyond the average Joe-at-church. Or Yusuf-at-mosque.

 

[columbus]

There are a lot of unhealthy and repressive attitudes toward human sexuality that appear to be based upon nothing more than repressive "morals."

Honestly, I don't think it's even that subtle.
Thousands of years ago, in the harsh conditions of the middle east, wearing clothes was a necessity. They didn't have much protection otherwise. And people too poor to afford sensible protection from the elements were deemed unimportant. Having and wearing clothes was both a status symbol and necessary.
So nudity was considered dreadful and immoral.

Well, now that's not necessarily true. On a pretty summer day, here in Indiana, with plentiful water and shade, nobody needs clothes. Especially not indoors, cranking up the airconditioning because you're overdressed is common(and stupid).
Tom

ETA ~I'm still not sure why the subject got changed to nudity. Looks like a desperate dodge to me ~

 

[sojourner]

Honestly, I don't think it's even that subtle.
Thousands of years ago, in the harsh conditions of the middle east, wearing clothes was a necessity. They didn't have much protection otherwise. And people too poor to afford sensible protection from the elements were deemed unimportant. Having and wearing clothes was both a status symbol and necessary.
So nudity was considered dreadful and immoral.

Well, now that's not necessarily true. On a pretty summer day, here in Indiana, with plentiful water and shade, nobody needs clothes. Especially not indoors, cranking up the airconditioning because you're overdressed is common(and stupid).
Tom

That's part of it, to be sure. But Middle-Eastern people have always covered their women, primarily because female bodies are seen as shameful and dirty. thanks for bringing in this dimension of the issue.

On a lighter note, I did some growing up in Indiana. Went to the same school as Larry Bird (although he's older than I am).

 

[columbus]

But Middle-Eastern people have always covered their women, primarily because female bodies are seen as shameful and dirty.

But which is the chicken and which is the egg?

If women always cover up, and decent men always provide their women with protective clothing, how long is it before even the tiniest sliver of female flesh becomes a huge big deal to men? Because they just haven't seen any?

Men are pigs. I know it's a cliche, but it's kinda true. ETA ~especially in cultures where women aren't valued as people ~
Tom

 

[Mitty]

That's part of it, to be sure. But Middle-Eastern people have always covered their women, primarily because female bodies are seen as shameful and dirty. thanks for bringing in this dimension of the issue.

On a lighter note, I did some growing up in Indiana. Went to the same school as Larry Bird (although he's older than I am).

Did Adam's grandmother cover up?

 

[sojourner]

Did Adam's grandmother cover up?

Only on Thursdays so she could go to Bingo at the Knights of Columbus. Apparently, they didn’t allow nudity on the Crosstown Bus.

 

[Piculet]

But Middle-Eastern people have always covered their women,

That is historically inaccurate, false.

The pendulum is swinging surely toward inclusion, tolerance, reason, and human rights. And that's a good thing.

Which gets you back to the idea that if humans just ignore God's commands and do as they like, God's commands will somehow cease to exist.

 

[Piculet]

Thousands of years ago, in the harsh conditions of the middle east, wearing clothes was a necessity. They didn't have much protection otherwise. And people too poor to afford sensible protection from the elements were deemed unimportant. Having and wearing clothes was both a status symbol and necessary.
So nudity was considered dreadful and immoral.

How many thousands of years ago and where do you get this information?

 

[Piculet]

So? the gay population -- in a crisis -- wouldn't make much of a difference.

What crisis? Of course they make a difference to the society. Not only that, people are supposed to affect positively to the society, not merely have no effect whatsoever.

Are you saying that the rules should change in such a situation to mandate polygamy? Are you saying that, in such a situation, homosexuals couldn't produce children by practicing polygamy with heterosexual partners?

I was definitely not saying such things..

What rules? Isn't the whole "sexual freedom" movement all about there not being rules? You can now refuse to be called a male or a female.

They have reviewed consequences.

That would be reviewing one thing out of a hundred and reviewing it only from the pov of one individual and excluding God from the whole equation. Not a comprehensive review. Nothing to lean on for the next 200 years.

God made us in wondrous variety

Indeed. He also gave us rules to follow for our own sake.

So you're saying that homosexuals are lesser humans and should not be allowed to enjoy full sexual expression. That's nice.

That doesn't relate well to what I said. There's hardly a need to twist my words if you are right.

Why? There is no reason, either biblical or scientific, for that to be the case.

You mean, you don't know of a reason — except the one in the Bible which you knowingly reject. It is as Islam teaches. Just so happens it is also what Judaism teaches.

Pedophilia doesn't fit the "equitable, committed, consensual, and loving" model.

I've heard a pedophile say that it does.

You're comparing an identified psychological illness with an identified psychological healthful condition

Homosexuality was officially an illness only a moment ago. With your logic, suddenly the world went from completely stupid to supremely wise and no one can comprehend why their great grandparents were so "homophobic".

 

[sojourner]

That is historically inaccurate, false

So, at some point in history, we know that they went around naked??

Which gets you back to the idea that if humans just ignore God's commands and do as they like, God's commands will somehow cease to exist

God’s commands are that we love God and love neighbor. I don’t see where this countermands either of those. In fact, it fulfills them.

 

[Piculet]

God’s commands are that we love God and love neighbor. I don’t see where this countermands either of those. I’m fact, it fulfills them.

that's the only command you would be willing to fulfill.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So here's the thing. You seem to be taking your anecdotal correlations that you've come across and implying that they indicate some kind of causation when it comes to homosexuality. I'm sorry, that dog just don't hunt, on a couple levels. 1, your anecdotes have not been reproduced in peer-reviewed research, and 2, correlation is not causation.

As far as LGBTQ kids not being as close with their same-sex parent goes, let's think of a reason why that might be. LGBTQ kids are often gender-nonconforming in their affect, behaviors, interests, etc. So it makes some sense that they would not have as close a relationship with a cis/straight same-sex parent, because the parent doesn't know how to relate to them. But that indicates that the queerness caused the lack of closeness, rather than the lack of closeness causing the queerness. See the difference?





I suspect you don't mean to come off this way, but that is deeply condescending to gay people. You really think I'm gay because I believe women have "coodies?" Seriously? You don't think gay people are smart or mature enough to distinguish lack of sexual attraction from prepubescent coodie fears? If you want me to believe you actually respect us as human beings, ridiculous assertions like this really don't help your case.



I suspect that the bulk of gay people you've met who say things like that are likely Christians or were raised Christians. Christianity (the conservative varieties, anyway) drill into our heads from as early as we can remember that being gay is something unnatural, shameful, sinful, disgusting, dangerous, a sign of spiritual deficiency, fill-in-your-favorite-negative-adjective-here. It's quite difficult to free oneself from that indoctrination, even years after one has walked away, even if intellectually one understands it doesn't make sense.



Again, there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that homosexuality is caused by a "wound." Homosexuality is just a natural variant of being human. It has occurred across cultures, across religions, across time, dating back millennia.



You're welcome.

No, the "bulk of gay people" I know aren't born agains. I already said I have gay friends and family and that I evangelize thousands of people outside RF.

I also already said I was led down this path of anecdotal exploration by a secular psychologist who worked with hundreds of gay clients.

Therefore, when someone says, "My friend is struggling with homosexual desire," and I reply "My understanding is this is usually sexual imprinting or same sex parent distance," they say, "That's me! It's not my friend, really . . . "

The statistical significance to me is intense--since it's every friend or family member or "interviewee" I've encountered.

I didn't say you're gay because girls had coodies. I said it's a shame that society is promoting that if you lack opposite sex attraction you could well be gay, without also affirming that assessment should be made at pubescence. I don't buy people who say they've ALWAYS known their gay--further because straight men also idolize parents, athletes, musicians, etc. from a tender age.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Immaterial. 99% of Christians can't explain the theology of their own church, either. Uninformed surface reading =/= exegesis of the text in question.

Huh? Secular persons or religious, 99 of 100 people don't read "Do not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman" as "Gay sex is fine if it's not anal sex".

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, I have a graduate degree in biblical studies, so it's likely that I'm more aware about the bible (and the ways in which it is correctly exegeted -- and ways in which it is incorrectly eisegeted) and its theological composition than you. I'm aware of the progressive nature of the NT (and OT) teachings as compared to the general mind set of the times in which the texts were produced. But I'm also aware how very easy it is for people to "get in their own way" when dabbling in the interpretive process. It's this sort of "interpretive" nonsense that mires the texts in such iron age thinking. I encourage you to get a graduate degree in biblical studies before you begin to sound like an "expert" on the subject.


Sex isn't all about procreation. Science recognizes that, as well.


Because the biblical writers weren't aware of orientation as a natural part of the human condition.


that insight is limited by lack of knowledge.


Immaterial. My thinking needs no "enhancing." First, I'm straight as an arrow, and I thought girls had cooties in school. But I also know that I was attracted to girls at an early age. I had a "girlfriend" when I was 5. Second, I think you're confused about how I view the bible vs. society. So, how can we enhance your thinking here?


Not so in all cases.


What about for married homosexual couples, who've made vows to one another and God?

Biblically, studying exegesis/eisegesis is less valuable than adherence to the author and the Bible precepts. For example, your question, "What about for married homosexual couples, who've made vows to one another and God?" has to be contrasted with the OT, "Kill them both in the sight of the people, to put away the evil from among you", and the NT, "Unnatural acts receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

You know exegesis and eisgesis, did you know there are 18 mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, none of them "good" or "permissible" or "okay"?

Since homosexual marriage is only permitted in secular society/some religious society in the 20th century, was no one since Moses as skilled as you in "exegesis"?

We know the answer--your degree in biblical studies has convinced you that God neither means what He says nor says what He means.

Are you aware of Paul's admonition to avoid complicating doctrine, to not fall into grievous error--"stray not from the simplicity in Christ"? Isn't that why countless people with Ph.D's in biblical studies see homosexual marriage as inappropriate and homosexual desire as part of our broken, fallen state?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is true though.

The human race is far more likely to destroy ourselves with the results of overpopulation than lack of procreation.

And religious people insisting that procreation trumps human welfare in general I consider extremely immoral. And since you attribute this immoral behavior to God I can only conclude that God is immoral.
@BilliardsBall
Tom

A bit convoluted, I think, so let's simplify--God is able to provide abundant resources to those who trust Him.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nor is homosexuality a sin given that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple and not a wife. But Jesus didn't claim to be a god or to be without sin either (Mark 10:18), and given that David was even his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) although he was an adulterous murderer who said his love with Jonathon was more wonderful than with any of his wives & concubines (2Sam 1:26).

The Bible plainly says in Romans 1 that both lesbian and gay sex are evidence of our broken, fallen nature.

Jesus claimed to be God--after all, He was crucified to pay for human sin only after the Pharisees asked if He was Messiah, and He declared He was the great I AM and that He would return from the right hand of God per Daniel 12.

David and Jonathan loved one another deeply, something I do with parents and children without sex. One of David's wives bitterly asaulted him verbally, so much so that David put her away for a lifetime--you bet Jonathan's love was shining in comparison.

 

[Mitty]

Huh? Secular persons or religious, 99 of 100 people don't read "Do not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman" as "Gay sex is fine if it's not anal sex".

And that's why the bible says absolutely nothing at all about female homosexuality, and why it does not say "woman shall not lie with womankind as with mankind, it is disgusting". Which is why Romans 1:26-27 describes anal sex of women and men as "vile" and "unseemly".

 

[sojourner]

What crisis?

You mentioned that things can change. The only change that would necessitate homosexuals procreating is an underpopulation crisis.

Of course they make a difference to the society. Not only that, people are supposed to affect positively to the society, not merely have no effect whatsoever.

I meant that procreation on their part would not significantly "increase the herd" in an underpopulation crisis.

I was definitely not saying such things..

Then just what were you saying? Somehow, you seem to think that something needs to change in order to keep the human race from dying out -- like we need to suddenly make more people. if that's not it, then you need to be much clearer. I think you're backpedaling.

What rules? Isn't the whole "sexual freedom" movement all about there not being rules? You can now refuse to be called a male or a female.

No, it's not about "no rules." It's about rules that are equitable and that respect the full humanity and identity of each individual, instead of making rules based on outdated religious thought that seek to perpetuate entitlement.

That would be reviewing one thing out of a hundred and reviewing it only from the pov of one individual and excluding God from the whole equation.

That's not How It Works, though. It's not just "reviewing one thing out of a hundred." You're making that up out of whole cloth. And scientific discovery doesn't particularly need God in the equation.

Indeed. He also gave us rules to follow for our own sake.

Yes God did! Such as: Love God, love neighbor, be kind, respect each other, play nice with the other kids, show hospitality, be merciful, show compassion, forgive each other, welcome the stranger. "No homosexual activity" isn't on the list -- except in your imagination.

That doesn't relate well to what I said.

Of course it does!! You're saying that a sex act that is carried out between two people as an expression of love and as an expression of a relationship that is built on equity, commitment, and is common consent is Ok for one segment of the population, but not for another segment of the population. And that line of demarcation is based on who that segment of the population is. Those who identify like you can screw like bunnies. But that "other" group -- "those people" -- are to be denied the full expression of their humanity, base on your misapprehension of a text you don't even believe in. I'd say it is absolutely pertinent to what you said.

You mean, you don't know of a reason — except the one in the Bible which you knowingly reject.

Why would you care what I do or don't believe in? The bible's not your holy book. But it is mine. I read it dispassionately, exegeting carefully. Homosexuality ain't in there. Period.

It is as Islam teaches.

I don't give a rat's patoot about Islam in a biblical argument. Even less in a sociological context.

I've heard a pedophile say that it does.

I've heard you say that homosexuality is an illness. So what?

Homosexuality was officially an illness only a moment ago.

Over 25 years ago. And that's just when the findings were published. The research was being carried out long before then. It's not like some irresponsible somebody just flipped a switch. Your hyperbole is inappropriate and ineffective.

With your logic, suddenly the world went from completely stupid to supremely wise and no one can comprehend why their great grandparents were so "homophobic".

Hyperbole again. That really all you got?