God And Homosexuality

[JesusKnowsYou]

Do you have any actual evidence such as DNA tests to support your claim, or is that just wishful thinking?

Right back at you bro.

Either way it still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister or his son or his goats since the ten commandments etc did not apply to him.

That is quite the assertion.

You understand that the Ten Commandments did not mention incest or bestiality at all?

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Nor was it morally wrong to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, or for Lot to sexually assault his daughters.

Some more unsupported assertions.

First - Abraham did not kill his son as a blood sacrifice - so you have no claim there.

Second - Cain was both marked and cursed by God personally for killing is brother - so you have no case here either.

Last - It was Lot's daughters who sexually abused him - not him them - where is your evidence that it was not morally wrong for his daughters to rape him?

So where does the bible say that a marriage requires a legally signed marriage contract and witnesses and a wedding celebrant?

Why do you believe that these things are required for marriage at all?

So what were men working with men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly" if it wasn't anal sex as obviously described in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13?

As I have explained to you before Leviticus 18 and 20 were describing the sexual sins performed by the inhabitants of the land that the Israelites were about to inherit.

The Lord was recounting what men in that land had done previously and commanding Israel not to repeat those offenses.

He was not listing all possibly ways to commit sexual sin.

What Paul claimed to be "vile" was the "affection" that these men and women had towards one another.

What would be considered "unseemly" would be any action caused by that "vile affection" or "lust".

And what were they "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" if it wasn't from anal sex?

You think this is a reference to anal sex?

That the "receiving in themselves" is a reference to them having a penis inserted in their anuses?

Do you not know what they word "recompence" means? It means "an equivalent return for something done, suffered or given" or "to pay damages".

Paul was claiming that these men and women were receiving in themselves the "'payment' of their error which was meet".

Paul then begins to list all those things that these men and women were "receiving in themselves" or the "wages" they were receiving.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Romans 1:28-32)

The "error" was the "unnatural use" of men and women - but the "recompence" or "payment" they received "in themselves" were these destructive behaviors.

Later on in this same epistle Paul simplified this by saying, "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)

And why doesn't the bible say anything about female homosexuality if you believe that anal sex is the "natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27)?

I do not believe that anal sex is the "natural use of the woman". Please don't put words in my mouth.

And as I have pointed out to you multiple times - Romans 1 addresses female homosexuality quite clearly.

And why didn't Jesus say anything about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife?

Jesus was preaching to the Jews who had the Law of Moses which already condemned homosexuality. There was no need for Him to repeat the obvious.

Paul is talking to Gentiles in Rome - who did not grow up with the Law - therefore they were just then being informed about the sin of homosexual behavior.

The Bible never claimed that Jesus loved His disciples instead of a wife.

The Bible does not make any claim about the marital status of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He could have very well been married. Nothing in the Bible discredits that option.

You are applying your own bias to the text. You are too jaded to discuss these things seriously.

I have gone over this stuff with you a few times on this thread already.

That's because the biblical writers obviously believed that Earth was a flat immovable disc, and that the universe was a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon as described in Isaiah 40:22 and Matt 4:8.

By this logic you would also have to argue that "biblical writers" also believed that all people were grasshopper-lamb hybrids who were made of grass and that their nations did not actually exist.

Why aren't you making that argument as well?

Oh - that's right - because you "pick and choose" which verses - or parts of verses - to interpret literally.

It is plain and simple bias. Logical fallacy.

The reference to grasshoppers just describes how people appear the further they are away from the observer..

The same could be said about the Earth.

Depending on how far an observer is from the Earth - could it not resemble - or appear to be - a disc?

Depending on how someone looks at the sky - could it not resemble - or appear to be - a dome?

Why is it okay to describe people as "grasshoppers" if they appear that way - but not okay to describe the Earth as a disc if it appears that way?

Why do you apply this subjective "appearance" argument to only the grasshoppers mentioned in that verse but not the rest of it?

Because it would be detrimental to your argument? Further expose your bias? Prove how illogical you are being?

If you believe otherwise, where does the bible describe Earth as an insignificant rotating ball orbiting the Sun. And where does the bible say that the universe is billions of years old with about two trillion visible galaxies?

There is literally no need for the Bible to describe any of that.

It is a collection of records of God's dealings with Man - not a textbook.

Have you recorded the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun in your journal?

Also - the Earth is not "insignificant" at all. it is our home.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God only recognizes marriage between a man and woman.

Where is this? Polygamy, child rape, etc are all in the bible and God seems pretty good with it. God doesn't even realize Adam NEEDS a woman until later after (cough) all the other animals don't quite (cough) "fit."

God wants them to only have sexual relations with the woman to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.

Jesus wouldn't exist without at least one prostitute and an ancestor who dressed as one to trick her father-in-law into having sex with her. Funny how it's fine for men to sleep around with hookers and concubines but not women.

If they claim to have a sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex - I will remind them that God only wants them to have sexual relations with the woman they will one day marry - so they should refrain from any sexual activity until they are married.

Does God have to do what the bible says or vice versa? If God told two women to marry, will you tell God He's wrong?

I mean, didn't God tell Hosea to marry a prostitute for "SYMBOLISM"? What's the difference?

If they struggle with this I will encourage them to read the scriptures and pray daily and rely on the strength and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ to overcome the temptation.

Scriptures don't forgive you or show you compassion. God does (or doesn't).

If they decide to act on their sexual desires and engage in sexual intercourse with a woman before they are married - I will express my severe disappointment in them and encourage them to change that behavior, read the scriptures daily and seek forgiveness from the Lord through prayer.

But God may have already told them it's fine. Everything's fine.

In other words Abraham had an incestuous sexual relationship with his sister since biblical morality, including the ten commandments, is obviously just man-made.

Don't forget that not only is Abe screwing his sister, but he pimps her out to a king for tax breaks.

or for Lot to sexually assault his daughters

To be fair, it sounds more like they sexually assaulted him.

 

[Mitty]

Right back at you bro.
That is quite the assertion.
You understand that the Ten Commandments did not mention incest or bestiality at all?

That's completely irrelevant since the ten commandments etc are just man-made and didn't apply to Abraham anyway.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Some more unsupported assertions.

First - Abraham did not kill his son as a blood sacrifice - so you have no claim there.

It still wasn't morally wrong if he had killed him or sexually assaulted him, given that the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him and are obviously just man-made.

Second - Cain was both marked and cursed by God personally for killing is brother - so you have no case here either.

Total nonsense, given that Cain(an)'s god even protected him from retribution when he relocated to Nod and lived happily ever after with a Nod girl or two. Same-same for Noah's father when he killed a young man (Gen 4).

Last - It was Lot's daughters who sexually abused him - not him them - where is your evidence that it was not morally wrong for his daughters to rape him?

Nonsense. That's just Lot's pathetic excuse for sexually assaulting them after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands. If you actually believe otherwise, then how did Lot's daughters manage to maintain their old man's erection let alone make him ejaculate given that he claimed that he was dead drunk. Did they use electo-ejaculators and turkey basters to inseminate themselves to coincide with both their ovulations?

But it wasn't morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault them since biblical morality is just man-made and the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him either.

Why do you believe that these things are required for marriage at all?

Which is why a biblical marriage is simply a personal agreement between two people to shack up together.

As I have explained to you before Leviticus 18 and 20 were describing the sexual sins performed by the inhabitants of the land that the Israelites were about to inherit.

The Lord was recounting what men in that land had done previously and commanding Israel not to repeat those offenses.

He was not listing all possibly ways to commit sexual sin.

What Paul claimed to be "vile" was the "affection" that these men and women had towards one another.

What would be considered "unseemly" would be any action caused by that "vile affection" or "lust".

Doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality.

You think this is a reference to anal sex?
That the "receiving in themselves" is a reference to them having a penis inserted in their anuses?

What ever it was it was still penetrative sex of both women and men by men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly"

Do you not know what they word "recompence" means? It means "an equivalent return for something done, suffered or given" or "to pay damages".

Paul was claiming that these men and women were receiving in themselves the "'payment' of their error which was meet".

Paul then begins to list all those things that these men and women were "receiving in themselves" or the "wages" they were receiving.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Romans 1:28-32)

The "error" was the "unnatural use" of men and women - but the "recompence" or "payment" they received "in themselves" were these destructive behaviors.

Later on in this same epistle Paul simplified this by saying, "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)

I do not believe that anal sex is the "natural use of the woman". Please don't put words in my mouth.

And as I have pointed out to you multiple times - Romans 1 addresses female homosexuality quite clearly.

Jesus was preaching to the Jews who had the Law of Moses which already condemned homosexuality. There was no need for Him to repeat the obvious.

Paul is talking to Gentiles in Rome - who did not grow up with the Law - therefore they were just then being informed about the sin of homosexual behavior.

None of that changes the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that Romans 1:26-27 obviously describes anal sex of women and men..

The Bible never claimed that Jesus loved His disciples instead of a wife.

So where does the bible say that Jesus was a heterosexual, and do you have any evidence that he wasn't a homosexual, given that he loved a particular disciple and said nothing at all about homosexuality except to ask his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12)

By this logic you would also have to argue that "biblical writers" also believed that all people were grasshopper-lamb hybrids who were made of grass and that their nations did not actually exist.

Why aren't you making that argument as well?

Oh - that's right - because you "pick and choose" which verses - or parts of verses - to interpret literally.

It is plain and simple bias. Logical fallacy.

The same could be said about the Earth.

Depending on who far an observer is from the Earth - could it not resemble - or appear to be - a disc?

Depending on how someone looks at the sky - could it not resemble - or appear to be - a dome?

Why do you apply this subjective "appearance" argument to only the grasshoppers mentioned in that verse but not the rest of it?

Because it would be detrimental to your argument? Further expose your bias? How illogical you are being?

There is literally no need for the Bible to describe any of that.

It is a collection of records of God's dealings with Man - not a textbook.

Have you recorded the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun in your journal?

Also - the Earth is not "insignificant" at all. it is our home.

None of that changes the fact that the bible describes Earth as a flat immovable disc, and does not describe Earth as a rotating globe orbiting the Sun. And it describes the universe as geocentric and as a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon.

 

[Mitty]

To be fair, it sounds more like they sexually assaulted him.

So how did they maintain their old man's erection if he was dead drunk with brewer's droop, let alone make him ejaculate? Did they use electro-ejaculators and turkey basters to impregnate themselves to coincide with their ovulations, or did Lot make up a pathetic story after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands?

Or is that just an imaginative story based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini and the demise of the Minoan civilization, like the story of Atlantis?

 

[sojourner]

This thread is about GOD and Homosexuality - so I will share what I believe God's position is on this issue.

In other words - what it means to me is crucial to my argument.

Unfortunately for you, your religious beliefs and opinions are not pertinent to the millions who do not share them. When that happens, what we "believe" about "God's position" bows to prevailing scientific precedent.

This "argument" can be spun the other way around:

"This is where a lot of problem comes in: too many people who believe they're "authorities" because they "have scientific theories" or "believe there is no such thing as sin".

the doctors, psychologists, and sociologists know a heckuva lot more about human sexuality than you do, and than the biblical writers did.

Everything I have shared has been my personal belief and I'm pretty sure I made that clear.

But you're speaking universally, as in "what everyone should or should not do." If you want to believe that homosexual acts are wrong, then, by all means, you refrain from engaging in them. But the moment you try to foist your values upon everyone else, you cross a line from "personal belief" to "what everyone ought to believe." That's not How This Works.

So it's up to you then? Or rather - up to those you consider to be the "proper" authorities?

It couldn't possibly be up to who I may consider to be a proper authority - right? Only you?

For someone who just tried to call me down for being a self-appointed "authority" - you're acting awfully authoritarian.

Doesn't have anything to do with "authorities." It has everything to do with agreed-upon usage. Dictionaries, glossaries, medical journals, etc.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Yet it is an opinion bereft of the possibility of revelation - or in other words - God talking directly to Man.

No, it has to do with a dispassionate evaluation of ancient texts. The texts and their sources are what they are. Heck! Even the Mormons include the proviso "where they are correctly translated." The thing is, according to the Tradition of the Faith, interpretation and revelation are never individual ventures. God has always worked communally.

Many of these "biblical writers" were men who I consider to be prophets who claimed to receive revelation from God.

That doesn't make the revelation 100% infallible, any more than you believe that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible. These writers still interpreted that revelation through the lens of their own understanding. That understanding (as your own tradition practices) changes from time to time, so the revelations change from time to time.

Your argument also has the potential to declare that all scripture - or even any type of eye-witness account - should never be believed.

I think all texts and accounts need verification and merit critical reading and exegesis. To simply take them at face value is irresponsible.

Since each "biblical writer" or eye-witness would be influenced by their "knowledge base" and "cultural perspective" - they are never reliable?

They're reliable inasmuch as they were writing to an intended audience from a particular perspective. But these writers simply didn't have 21st century America in mind when they were writing. Therefore, we have to figure out what they intended, and translate that intention to our circumstances.

I also love how you claim that the "biblical writers" are unable to declare God's will - yet you are fully capable of doing so.

I never said that. I said that they declared God's will for a certain time, place, and culture. None of those are ours. What I say, I extrapolate from an exegesis of the texts, taking under consideration the other foundation stones of interpretation: Tradition, reason, and experience.

You just declared that, "God doesn't define marriage. Ever." and "That's not what God had in mind."

So - by your own admission - you are capable of interpreting God's will accurately while "biblical writers" and those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman cannot.

Because there's no proof that God ever did that. There is, however, proof that some human writers did that.

I said "that's not what God had in mind," because an inclusive God is congruent with the very biblical (and, for the time, very forward-thinking) tenets of compassion, love, kindness, forbearance, mercy, forgiveness, and hospitality.
​

I'm capable of a valid exegesis of the texts, based on study, research, and use of peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. My point was that, lacking a level of understanding of human sexuality, the biblical writers wrote from that perspective. But that doesn't mean that we have to (or should) throw scientific and sociological reason out the window, just because an ancient text "says."

Also - considering that God has claimed to have a Kingdom which only those who do as He has commanded could enter - can you explain - based on your vast knowledge and heavenly gifts - why God would never "exclude" someone from certain blessings - such as marriage?

See above. That theology is incongruent with biblical tenet.

He also mentioned how these people were infected with "vile affections" and that they "burned in their lust one toward another".

Because, for Paul, the notion that people could be attracted to the same sex just like they can be attracted to the opposite sex never entered his mind. He simply did not have the information or the understanding. It took the scientific community until 1994 to definitively reach the conclusions they reached with regard to human sexuality. Paul simply could not have understood it. Paul wrote what he knew. In Paul's limited understanding, anyone who was attracted same-sex "had a vile lust." We know better now, just as we know that the earth is not flat, and that menstruation is not caused by "evil spirits."

The scriptures stand as a testament that marriage should only be between men and women and that sexual relations should only be between a husband and wife.

The scriptures stand as a testament to what they are: a product of ancient thought. The bible simply is not a reliable resource for medicine and science. And, at this point, the homosexual question is HIGHLY informed by science.

I believe that any sexual relationship outside of marriage - no matter how loving, committed, consensual or equitable - is sinful and should be avoided.

Then you are more than welcome to not engage in such. But you have no right to condemn others for doing what they believe is right.

Again - you hypocritically act as an authority - after you erroneously tried to call me down for it - and you believe that you are uniquely qualified to interpret God's will.

Hyperbole. I'm qualified to exegete the texts and formulate valid theology. My ordination and standing (as well as education) grant me religious authority to speak on behalf of the Church.

It's too bad that you are too affected by your "knowledge base" and "cultural perspective" to be an accurate authority on these things.

It's too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.

Polygamous marriages were not illegal in the United States at the time when the Church first started the practice.

Doesn't matter if they were illegal. Paul said, "All things are legal, but not all things are beneficial." Polygamous marriages are not beneficial. And before you claim that they were beneficial, please bear in mind that that "defense" would merely prove my point that revelation changes with circumstances. You have no valid position from which to throw rocks at others.

It is my opinion that any "Christian authority" who regards same-sex marriage as a practice approved by God is void of the Holy Spirit and ignorant of not only the testimony contained in the scriptures but of our purposes of being in this world and our eternal progression.

Happily, your opinion doesn't matter outside the sphere of your household. When Jesus comes back and lands in Canterbury and declares that homosexual marriage is A-OK, what will you do? Claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, since A) he didn't land in Salt Lake City, and B) it "goes against the bible?"

God never commanded that those who have a sexual attraction to the same sex should be put to death.

He did - however - command in the old Mosaic Law that those who acted on such an attraction should be put to death.

And that constitutes entitlement and dehumanization. Easy for you, who are heterosexual to claim that having sex with your spouse is OK, but that someone else may not have sex with their spouse, simply because they don't fit your mold. To declare that any person cannot act upon her or his sexual orientation is to imply that that person is flawed, or inferior, or even not entirely human. You effectively strip them of dignity and full personhood. Congratulations! You've managed to not honor a whole bunch of people. I seem to remember that you had a similar position with regard to blacks. it's bigotry.

Having a murderous desire does not make someone a murderer - so they are not guilty of the sin of murder.

Human sexuality isn't a crime. The comparison is not cogent.

Labeling someone a homosexual for being attracted to the same sex would be similar to labeling someone a murderer for having a desire to kill their boss.

No, it would be similar to labeling someone a heterosexual for being attracted to the opposite sex. See above for how your post constitutes a mind set of systemic violence: to equate a sexual orientation with a crime.

Claiming that a person should be labelled anything simply based on their desire or attraction is flawed in my opinion

Happily, you're not an authority on human sexuality. It's not a "label," it's a descriptor.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anthropologists have determined that male fathers became "daddies" because it was highly adaptive, and it inevitably increased our inclination towards pair bonding (as opposed to being a tournament species). IOW what is natural for human beings today is having a mother AND a father.

Single parenting (while it sometimes cannot be avoided, i.e., by divorced or widowed parents) is not what is natural. Neither is gay parenting, even though it can be extremely loving.

I would say, thugh, that we are comparing loving with loving. Obviously a loving gay couple is better than an abusive heterosexual couple in terms of child rearing.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Where is this? Polygamy, child rape, etc are all in the bible and God seems pretty good with it.

Something "being in the Bible" does not mean that God was "pretty good" with it.

The Bible is a record of God's dealings with Man and will therefore record the wickedness and righteousness of Man.

There were times when God sanctioned certain men to have more than one wife.

There is nothing inherently sinful about polygamy because it is still marriage between a man and woman and sexual relations within marriage.

Where did God claim that He was "pretty good" with child rape?

God doesn't even realize Adam NEEDS a woman until later after (cough) all the other animals don't quite (cough) "fit."

This is so immature.

God had every intention of forming a Woman for Adam - but as the steward of the planet - Adam first had to learn how to tend the Garden and name all the creatures.

Jesus wouldn't exist without at least one prostitute and an ancestor who dressed as one to trick her father-in-law into having sex with her.

This is not accurate.

Joseph - the husband of Mary and adopted father of Jesus - descended from Pharez - not Jesus Himself.

Jesus' father was God the Father and there is no record of Mary's lineage.

Funny how it's fine for men to sleep around with hookers and concubines but not women.

The Bible repeatedly condemns fornication. For example,

"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (1 Corinthians 6:15-20)

Does God have to do what the bible says or vice versa?

Both.

God has revealed His Word to Man and He will never deny His Word because He is perfect and will not lie.

If God told two women to marry, will you tell God He's wrong?

That could never happen because God would never deny His Word.

I mean, didn't God tell Hosea to marry a prostitute for "SYMBOLISM"? What's the difference?

It is not sinful to marry a prostitute.

It is sinful to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex.

God did not force Gomer to commit adultery.

Scriptures don't forgive you or show you compassion. God does (or doesn't).

Studying the scriptures helps you learn more about God and His Christ - which draws you closer to them.

Feasting on the words of Christ can give you power over temptation.

In the example I gave - my children had not yet committed the sin of fornication - so they would have no need to be forgiven of it.

I would want them to study and pray if they are struggling with temptation to commit fornication.

We should always be studying the scriptures and pondering on them.

If we don't know the scriptures then we wouldn't know God's compassion and His willingness to forgive us of our sins.

But God may have already told them it's fine. Everything's fine.

That could never happen because God would never deny His Word.

Don't forget that not only is Abe screwing his sister, but he pimps her out to a king for tax breaks.

Sarah was not Abraham's biological sister and she did not have sex with any kings.

To be fair, it sounds more like they sexually assaulted him.

That they did.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

So why didn't the "god" say anything about female homosexuality, given that other aspects of female sexuality are specifically dealt with in Leviticus 18 & 20, including bestiality and adultery by all remarried divorcees (Leviticus 20:10), and that even disobedient children are also commanded to be put to death?

This will be like the fifth time I will go over this with you.

Those two chapters were God recounting what the previous inhabitants of the land had done.

They were not complete lists of all sexual sins.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's completely irrelevant since the ten commandments etc are just man-made and didn't apply to Abraham anyway.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

It still wasn't morally wrong if he had killed him or sexually assaulted him, given that the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him and are obviously just man-made.

Total nonsense, given that Cain(an)'s god even protected him from retribution when he relocated to Nod and lived happily ever after with a Nod girl or two. Same-same for Noah's father when he killed a young man (Gen 4).

Nonsense. That's just Lot's pathetic excuse for sexually assaulting them after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands. If you actually believe otherwise, then how did Lot's daughters manage to maintain their old man's erection let alone make him ejaculate given that he claimed that he was dead drunk. Did they use electo-ejaculators and turkey basters to inseminate themselves to coincide with both their ovulations?

But it wasn't morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault them since biblical morality is just man-made and the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him either.

Which is why a biblical marriage is simply a personal agreement between two people to shack up together.

Doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality.

What ever it was it was still penetrative sex of both women and men by men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly"

None of that changes the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that Romans 1:26-27 obviously describes anal sex of women and men..

So where does the bible say that Jesus was a heterosexual, and do you have any evidence that he wasn't a homosexual, given that he loved a particular disciple and said nothing at all about homosexuality except to ask his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12)

None of that changes the fact that the bible describes Earth as a flat immovable disc, and does not describe Earth as a rotating globe orbiting the Sun. And it describes the universe as geocentric and as a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon.

You are so disingenuous. A complete waste who knows nothing.

I won't engage with you further.

 

[Mitty]

You are so disingenuous. A complete waste who knows nothing.

I won't engage with you further.

Doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality.
And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality nor why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife.
Nor does it change the fact that the bible describes Earth as an immovable flat disc and the universe as a tent attached to the circle of the horizon.
Nor does it change the fact that the ten commandments etc are obviously just man-made since they did not apply to Abraham et al nor to our aborigines who arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was a girl.

 

[Mitty]

This will be like the fifth time I will go over this with you.

Those two chapters were God recounting what the previous inhabitants of the land had done.

They were not complete lists of all sexual sins.

And I will go over this with you for the fiftieth time that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuals, since they do not have anal sex as obviously described in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 and in Romans 1:26-27 for heterosexual women.

 

[Mitty]

Joseph - the husband of Mary and adopted father of Jesus - descended from Pharez - not Jesus Himself.

Jesus' father was God the Father and there is no record of Mary's lineage.

Nonsense. Luke 3 says that Jesus' biological father was Heli's son coincidentally also named Joseph, and presumably based on a relationship with Jesus' mother who was the daughter of Joachime and Ann. But since maternity is a matter of fact and paternity is just a matter of opinion, then without a reliable DNA paternity test Jesus' biological father could have been a Roman centurion as some claim, or the milkman. But either way, it certainly wasn't the Almighty who lifted Mary's nightie and gave Jesus his Y chromosome as you claim.

God had every intention of forming a Woman for Adam - but as the steward of the planet - Adam first had to learn how to tend the Garden and name all the creatures.

Is that why bestiality wasn't morally wrong for Abraham and his ancestors since biblical morality is obviously just man-made?

The Bible repeatedly condemns fornication.

That's because fornication is a synonym for prostitution, and why Donald Trump and other whoremongers will be tossed into the lake of fire with all the remarried divorcees (Rev 21:8).

Sarah was not Abraham's biological sister and she did not have sex with any kings.
That they did.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that Sarah wasn't Abraham's biological sister, given that the bible says she was?
Or don't you believe what the bible actually says?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, so what I said you said was accurate.



Again, there is zero peer-reviewed evidence that hugging your sons prevents them from turning gay. A wide variety of social conservatives think that's the issue, not just born agains. It was a basic frame of mind behind the entire "ex-gay" movement, which has now basically collapsed because it has been exposed as such a baseless scam, even from people who were leaders in the movement.

Also, why are we ignoring gay women here?



We've covered this. This trend is changing as gender roles become more egalitarian. Nor is it relevant to what causes homosexuality or whether homosexuality is moral.



Psychoanalysis is largely pseudoscientific IMO. Most modern-day mental health professionals and orgs reject Freud's psychosexual hypotheses. The fact that you don't seem to know that indicates your lack of awareness of evidence-based psychology and mental health interventions.

There is a substantial body of scientific research demonstrating the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral approach. Therapeutic attempts to make gay people straight, born out of a view that homosexuality is a pathology to be treated, have repeatedly been failures.

I agree with some of what you wrote:

"Therapeutic attempts to make gay people straight, born out of a view that homosexuality is a pathology to be treated, have repeatedly been failures."

But Jesus/Christian counseling can indeed make a difference. Jesus doesn't cure everyone of disease, but He does lots of healing! I've seen Him bring broken people to wholeness--and yes, a change of sexual orientation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, they don't. Not anymore than straight people.

You don't know what my mindset is, so don't assume.

Yes, both straight and gay people are broken, including sexually. Yes. Now who is the Healer?

 

[Left Coast]

I agree with some of what you wrote:

"Therapeutic attempts to make gay people straight, born out of a view that homosexuality is a pathology to be treated, have repeatedly been failures."

But Jesus/Christian counseling can indeed make a difference. Jesus doesn't cure everyone of disease, but He does lots of healing! I've seen Him bring broken people to wholeness--and yes, a change of sexual orientation.

The research has also debunked Christian versions of such "counseling." The head of Exodus International, the largest Christian ex-gay organization probably in the world, has admitted it's a sham and he's never met a single person who has genuinely had their sexual orientation changed by such efforts. Lots of people have come forward admitting they lied about their sexual orientation changing though.

Again, your perspective on these issues is quite obviously, as I said before, grounded in your dogmatic belief in the Bible. There's really no where to go from there in the conversation, as I don't share that dogma (anymore).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Something "being in the Bible" does not mean that God was "pretty good" with it.

It is if He doesn't condemn it.

Where did God claim that He was "pretty good" with child rape?

Research how old girls were when forced to marry adult men.

This is so immature.

Maybe, but it's what happens in the story.

For realz, though, the likely explanation is that after Yahweh had been divorced by His followers from His Wife Asherah, the author writes of man being made of the image of God. Since God by that time wasn't allowed to have a wife anymore, Eve wasn't considered necessary until the plot hole became obvious. God made a man out of dirt. Did He lose the recipe? If God can make humans out of dirt (just as the NT says God can make children of Abraham out of rocks), why was a female even necessary? Why does it have to be Adam's twin sister Adora (I mean, Eve)?

God had every intention of forming a Woman for Adam - but as the steward of the planet - Adam first had to learn how to tend the Garden and name all the creatures.

Well, that took maybe a few hours in a tiny garden.

This is not accurate.

It is, though. Had every man in Jesus' lineage kept it in his pants, so to speak, he wouldn't have been born.

The Bible repeatedly condemns fornication. For example,

So, Paul is neither my messiah nor my God. I don't care what he thinks.

God has revealed His Word to Man and He will never deny His Word because He is perfect and will not lie.

He told ME that He didn't say half the stuff in it. If God doesn't lie, then ....

I do believe that God revealed His Word, only that reality is God's Word, not some book. Only the publishers of the texts want people to continue to commit idolatry.

God did not force Gomer to commit adultery.

He DID specifically choose her as a mate for Hosea PRECISELY because she was a hooker. It was the entire reason for the marriage.

Studying the scriptures helps you learn more about God and His Christ - which draws you closer to them.

As a theist I don't have to. I just ask God. The bible isn't a horcrux. If I stab it, God's blood doesn't come out of it. It's the difference between reading the manual and driving the car. You're only driving if you're behind the wheel of an actual car.

If we don't know the scriptures then we wouldn't know God's compassion and His willingness to forgive us of our sins.

God doesn't need the bible's permission to do whatever He wants. God is the God here, not the bible.

Sarah was not Abraham's biological sister and she did not have sex with any kings.

Abe specifically sends his sister/wife to go hang out with Pharaoh so he can get tax breaks.

Nor does it change the fact that the ten commandments etc are obviously just man-made since they did not apply to Abraham et al nor to our aborigines who arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was a girl.

To really blow their minds, you have to realize that per the bible, they didn't know of the Law (of Moses) until the reign of King Josiah. The anachronisms throughout the OT speak heavily of being written way later, much of it around the time of the Babylonian Exile. I wrote a book about it (PM if you want a link), where Shaphan learns of the political wildstorm as secular authority such as King Josiah and the nobles fight it out with religious authority, such as High Priest Hilkiah. Ever since Samuel, the stories told were of "church vs state" type infighting. Even Moses shows this, as he and Aaron have it out every once in awhile over who is in charge: the military leader or the priest.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The research has also debunked Christian versions of such "counseling." The head of Exodus International, the largest Christian ex-gay organization probably in the world, has admitted it's a sham and he's never met a single person who has genuinely had their sexual orientation changed by such efforts. Lots of people have come forward admitting they lied about their sexual orientation changing though.

In my professional opinion, any facility claiming to be a medical facility (whether it's something like a hospital or a therapist) and yet use dogma over evidence-based practice, should have any licenses revoked and jail time if they don't have any to begin with.

 

[Left Coast]

In my professional opinion, any facility claiming to be a medical facility (whether it's something like a hospital or a therapist) and yet use dogma over evidence-based practice, should have any licenses revoked and jail time if they don't have any to begin with.

I didnt realize you were a medical professional, Kelly! What do you do?

 

[Mitty]

First - Abraham did not kill his son as a blood sacrifice - so you have no claim there.

Was that because Abraham's god changed it's mind after it commanded Abraham to butcher Isaac and preferred to eat mutton instead (Gen 22)?
But why didn't Abraham give the god some veal instead of mutton like he did when they shared a meal together and had a face to face discussion about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah and Sodom (Gen 18)?

 

[sojourner]

God has revealed His Word to Man and He will never deny His Word because He is perfect and will not lie.

But those who received the messages are fallible individuals, who mayor may not have interpreted correctly. Suffice to say that the bible is not the be-all-end-all of God's revelation, nor is it perfect. To treat it as such is irresponsible.

That could never happen because God would never deny His Word.

But it has happened! God has called lesbians to marriage. Sticking your head in the sand over it doesn't magically make it go away. You're going to have to deal with it.

It is sinful to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex.

Only if that relationship is not committed, consensual, loving, and equitable -- just as for heterosexual relations.