1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Skwim, Mar 11, 2018.

  1. Axe Elf

    Axe Elf Prophet

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,395
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Religion:
    zen Xian
    Fair enough, there are people on this site that exhaust me too, so I understand how you feel. We can just deal with the omnibenevolence issue for now, but I will have to insist that in the absence of any evidence or argument to the contrary, my claim that things exist only in contrast to their negation will stand until countered effectively.

    That's easy to say when considering those acts being done by a man, of the same limited perspective as ourselves, but we're talking about a being Who understands the effects of everything, everywhere (Who authored them, even), so He would be qualified to understand what greater good could be served by a few local inconveniences. I can't consider causing people to die as evil, because He created us all to die--the exact time and means of our deaths is largely irrelevant in the big picture.

    But why do innocent babies and puppies have to drown in hurricanes? So we can have the kind of an atmosphere on this planet that will support life as we know it. Life, overall, is a good thing, and so it exists. The duration of life is an unknown, but what IS known is that we are all going to die, whether God exists or not. If you want to say that we all die because God causes it, then that's fine with me--because we never would have lived at all if not for God's kind gift of life.

    In any case, I would never try to PROVE that God exists, or that He is any of the omni's. But I CAN understand an omni-God in a way that is rational, and I CAN say that IF such a God exists, then we cannot conclude anything other than that we live in the best of all possible universes; therefore any evil or suffering that we observe is only that amount of evil and suffering that is necessary to the best of all possible universes. If such an omni-God does not exist, then we are not bound to conclude that, and we might legitimately wonder why there is so much evil and suffering in the world. But of course, then we could no longer blame it on God, since He doesn't exist.
     
  2. Jason.D.King

    Jason.D.King New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +4
    Religion:
    Abrahamic Christian
    There are a handful of verses that people use to clobber homosexual acts. I first want to take you to Genesis 19. This whole book is used to condemn homosexual acts. However, let us evaluate it. Genesis 19 is about the angels who came to visit Lot. Now, first, before any homosexual acts occur, YHWH had decided that the city of Sodom was to be destroyed. That is important for later evaluation, because people make the claim that the city was condemned for homosexual male actions. This isn’t known, as the acts the Bible describe occur after the condemnation of the city by YHWH. It is an incorrect assumption that all the evil acts were because of events described after the fact that YHWH decided to destroy the cities.


    Now, the next thing we note in Genesis 19, occurs in verse 5-9. The men of the city ask Lot to turn over the men, so that they may rape them, and Lot states that his daughters are willing virgins as opposed to the forced public sexual assault the men are proposing. At least this is how the story is told. The Bible reads, “5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.”


    Let us first talk about the Hebrew tradition of how to treat guests. It was tradition to take in guests and meet their needs before first even knowing their names or their business. A guest in a Hebrew house was protected, by the master of that house. In the case of Lot, and his guests, he first had to take care of their needs, and protect them. That is why he went out to the town in the first place. It would have been sinful to do otherwise.

    However, the men of the city wanted them delivered to them, so that they might rape them. The angels, and moreover YHWH, were condemning the city first for its actions, and then secondly for its treatment of travelers and guests. Moreover, the notion of wrongdoing (and by proxy is therefore sinful) is that it is wrong to rape. Consensual homosexual relationships are in fact not rape, and therefore have nothing to do with the scenario described by Genesis 19.


    The next logical clobber passage to discuss is Jude 1:6-7 which reads, “6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The part about “going after strange flesh” is what is most often used to condemn homosexual activity. However, the term used here in the original Greek is “sarkos heteras”. I find It ironic that “heteras” is used to formulate the modern term “heterosexual” or for those who are being intentionally obtuse about this, we are in fact talking about adult male – female relationships, or straight, as in heterosexual relationships. The verse clearly isn’t referring to homosexual activity, and is more likely referring to the fact, given the verse before it, men in Sodom trying to rape angels. One could infer that Jude is condemning rape, or sex with angels, or both. However, it does not make logical sense to conclude at all that Jude was writing about males attracted to males, nor was he writing about females attracted to females.


    The next verse I wanted to discuss is in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22. The verse reads, “22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” However, many who quote this verse use only this verse. The book of Leviticus is actually talking about something different than what modern people use this verse for, let us investigate. Leviticus 18:3 reads, “3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.” The same chapter, a few verses earlier in the introduction clues us in that in fact the works is referring to how the Egyptians lived. What was it that the Egyptians were doing that was so bad?

    Verses 6 through 18 describe incestuous sexual behavior. Verse 19 and 20 leaves the topic of incest, and continues the theme of sexual immorality to discuss the topics of menstruation and adultery. Now here is the key to understanding, verse 21 discusses pagan rituals of throwing children into a fire.

    We have indeed left the discussion of sexual immorality, and began the discussion of pagan ritual. Moreover it discusses a known Egyptian deity: Molech. Molech worship involved two things: ritual sacrifice of either children or animals. Additionally, it was in conflict to YHWH, as Molech worship meant accepting Molech as king. Thirdly, Molech worship also has been referred to as involving pagan ritual sex with temple prostitutes to increase fertility. Often these temple prostitutes were male, and those engaging in the ritual sex were also males. However, verse 21 doesn’t address this does it?

    In fact, verse 22 does not change the topic back sexual immorality, it continues with the discussion on Molech worship. Indeed, the next verse (23) is also referring to the ceremonial behavior of bestiality in Molech pagan temple worship. It doesn’t make logical sense to assume that verse 22 is a standalone verse on sexual behavior sandwiched between two verses concerning pagan temple worship.

    To further investigate this, let us look at the original Hebrew of this verse: In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." Which would read in English, “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.” That doesn’t make a great deal of sense, so conservative translators (like the KJV) added two words to the translation, so that it reads, “And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.” That isn’t exactly correct, as it is just an assumption. One could as easily add, “And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." One would translate to all homosexual activity is forbidden, and the other that it is only forbidden in the “lyings” or bed, or a woman. However, context is key to understanding, as the verse in context of the surrounding verse should read along the lines of “Do not have ritual pagan sex in a temple with a man, as you would have sex with your wife at home.” The key difference is marriage in place, the intentions of the sexual activity, and the fact that it would be to a deity in defiance of YHWH. The verse simply does not condemn homosexual activity.

    Next, we have Leviticus 20:13, which reads in the KJV: “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” The transliterated Hebrew reads, “V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam.” The translation here is similar to the KJV, however there is some context being left out. In Hebrew, there are subtle text differences that make context and intent have meaning. For example, “V’ish” means two words. In this example, it would mean And (V) man (ish). “V” cannot exist by itself, therefore it is attached to “ish” with an apostrophe. We do not know what it should mean, other than to read it with context clues, to get either “and a man” or “man also”, depending on how you would translate the next words. The word that is up for discussion in this example, is “mishk’vei”. The word “shk’v” as a noun, would mean “bed”, and overall it would mean “lie down bed” Now, also, “mishk’vei” is also in a plural state, meaning or referring to “beds”. If we did not also add in some English words to this translation of “mishk’vei” the translation would make no sense, for example the verse would read, “And men who with other men lie down bed.” That doesn’t make much sense, so we add the word “in”. I know this sounds trivial, however there is a point. The next word involved “ishah” refers to a singular woman. Add that to the sentence we just translated, and it makes even less sense: “And men who with other men lie down bed woman.” This is another spot, in the same verse, that we must add English words to construct any sense. The correct translation of this verse should read, “And if a man lies down in the bed of a woman with another man.” We know this because of the context clues in the translation.

    In our modern society, we don’t understand the significance of that translation. They didn’t in 1611 England either. However, in ancient Hebrew culture, it made perfect sense. You see, the woman’s bed was considered a holy thing. It was her bed for one purpose: completing procreation for her husband as part of a duty to YHWH. The woman’s bed was very holy.


    Why would any of this be important? Reflect back to Leviticus 18:21-22 and you have your reasoning. In just two chapters back we are dealing with pagan ritual sex, and how it went against YHWH; it makes sense to conclude that this is no different. Leviticus 20:13 as been misrepresented to condemn homosexual activity, when it fact it was referring to keeping the sanctity of a wife’s bed. The verse should read, “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, with the intention to defile her bed as the pagans (Molech) do, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Or, to understand easier, “If a man has ritual sex with a man in his wife’s bed, then both men have committed an abomination…”


    It is clear that the verse is not referring to everyday homosexual actions, and rather the actions of pagans.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Jason.D.King

    Jason.D.King New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2018
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +4
    Religion:
    Abrahamic Christian
    The next section to address is in Paul’s writings in the book of Romans. Specifically, Romans 1:26-27 which reads, “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    There is a lot to be said here, first let us look at the actual verses in question. They are referring to men and women who turned from their natural desires to engage in homosexual activity, and as a result were condemned. Logic would follow that the same could be said in the opposite, that is to say that if a gay man or woman gave up their natural desires and acted straight, then they too would be condemned. That alone should be enough to rebuke them as being verses that condemn homosexual behavior, however there is more to be said about them.

    Paul made a point with Romans, chapter 1. He was talking about all the things that the people of the time spent a great effort to condemn. He lists out everything that the church was arguing about, or protesting. How do we know this? I point you to Romans 2:1, which reads, “2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” That says a mouthful right there. It is referring to all of the things the church had been judging in Romans 1. Even if you could find some way to use the verses in Romans 1 to condemn homosexual behavior, you would then to be condemning yourself.

    The next clobber passage to discuss is more of Paul’s writings. This passage is in Greek originally, and thus it is addressed to the Greek people of the time. Let us talk about the Greek culture that the church at Corinth existed. The Greeks lived in a society controlled by men, women were soft, and subjugated to the men of the time. Male teachers had sex with the students, as a way to build confidence, and it was common and accepted. Males were required by society to be strong, masculine, and independent. Men who ate too much, or liked expensive things too much, or was soft were spoken ill of, and thought of as morally bankrupt.

    The passage I am referring to is 1 Corinthians 6:9, which reads, “ 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

    The portion of this verse relies on two lines to condemn homosexual behavior, “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” The original Greek words, would have been “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”. Firstly, it should be noted that “arsenokoitai” is a word that Paul seemed to have coined, but never defined. It is exclusively used in Paul’s writings in the Greek language.

    Malakoi seems to be ambiguous in its meaning also. Some scholars believe it to mean “soft cloth”, as it is used that way in other areas of text and the bible. For instance, the exact same word appears in Matthew 11:8, and reads, “8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” It also appears in Luke 7:25 and reads, “25 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts.” Now, I have to ask, why then would it mean homosexuals used in Paul’s writings and not so in Matthew and Luke?

    The answer is quite obvious, as I previously discussed: context. The term has different meanings in different contexts. It can be utilized to explain soft cloth, much like a rich person would have worn in Greek culture, and in terms of morality it would mean something along the lines of soft morals, or weak morals, someone who is easily influenced – someone with a lack of courage, or to be more frank, someone “soft like a woman”. Yes, in our modern culture that phrase is not socially acceptable, however remember the review of the Greek culture: women were expected to be soft natured and subjugated. It makes more sense in that context than to simply say “effeminate” men.

    The next term, “arsenokoitai” is Paul’s term, which he did not clearly define. In fact, in the entire Greek language, this term was not ever used before Paul in any writing. However, it seems to be derived from other Greek words. "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." Knowing exactly what “man beds” would be referring to is near impossible, partly because if Paul had been referring to sexual activity between men, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” which means exactly that. We should conclude that he meant something other than adult male – adult male sexual behavior.

    The most logical conclusion would then be to look for other uses of the term. There is in fact textual writings after Paul that suggest a meaning. This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. Which infers that the term means someone who profits from exploiting sexual acts of others. In other words, it is referring to a pimp, more specifically someone who profits from male prostitutes. “Were there male prostitutes in the time frame?” would make the most logical sense to ask and make conclusions about. In fact, yes, there were. There were in fact male prostitutes that were children, and forced into sexual servitude, and temple prostitutes. The temple prostitutes were neither forced into it, nor were they profited off of; therefore we can logically conclude that Paul was writing about the men who sold sexual services from the male children who were forced into servitude.

    Now, if we put these two definitions in the passage, that we have logically concluded we get a more logical and sensible translation of the passage, which should read, ““ 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally soft men, nor pimps of children,” However, that is also not entirely logical, and difficult to read. It should most likely say, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: those who fornicate, those who are idolaters (Paul is probably referring to the temple prostitutes here, as this passage is mostly about people who are sexually corrupt), adulterers, those who are easily convinced to accept this behavior and are otherwise morally bankrupt, and those who would profit from this sexual deviance”

    It remains fuzzy and unclear about Pual’s intention. Although, one thing is certain, Paul was not writing about homosexuals in general, he was writing about people who were sexually deviant and morally bankrupt. In modern terms, this doesn’t describe the whole of homosexual behavior in comparison to heterosexual behavior. Those who would make this link are incorrect.

    We see a second use of the same term in the bible, in 1 Timothy 1:10, which reads in the KJV “10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” There isn’t a lot of need to talk about this verse, as it is using the same word “Arsenokoitai” and has been translated this time to “for them that defile themselves with mankind”. Simply read the verse in the correct context as explained earlier, “10 For whoremongers, and pimps…” No further explanation is needed, as it is clearly not talking about homosexuals.

    From the earliest verses we see that the bible condemns things such as: incest, rape, defying YHWH, pagan ritual sex, forcibly profiting as a pimp, being a prostitute, and just being sexually immoral in general. However, when one does a deep analysis of the original Hebrew and Greek referring to these verses, it is clear that the bible does not in fact discuss homosexuality in terms of sexually immoral. In fact, it doesn’t talk about it at all, considering the translation most rely on was finished in 1611, and the term “homosexual” did not originate until the 19th century. It seems a more logical conclusion that the terms used when translating the bible had more to do with socio-political inferences of the time of translation, and not socio-political inferences of the society in which the verses were actually written. Additionally, nearly a century later, modern churches are making inferences on the previous translation of the bible, and ignoring the original context.


    In short, the bible does not condemn homosexual behaviors, lifestyles, etc. in general.
     
  4. Aldrnari

    Aldrnari Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    477
    Ratings:
    +355
    Religion:
    Eclectic Agnostic
    ...unless we don't, whereby destruction/torture is our fate (depending on your beliefs). To each their own, I suppose, but it doesn't make much sense for me.

    Hmmm... An interesting interpretation, though two guys in a bed don't necessarily mean hanky panky is going on. Hell, I've slept in the same bed as a friend at a hotel to save money while traveling a long distance (big mistake, though... He snores).

    The parable in Luke was interpreted at my old church to mean that some would stay, while others would go. No homosexual connotations were involved, though, maybe it could be taken that way.

    The bible clearly commands death for homosexual behavior, though, no matter how you spin it. o_O

    I didn't say there weren't, but they're irrelevant. They concern behaviors that can be controlled (minus mental disorders, such as nymphomania, which making sinful would also be wrong imo since they were created to be that way). The other concerns the way one is born.

    Don't join yourself with a prostitute: (choice)

    Don't lust after your neighbor's wife: (choice)

    Don't fornicate: (choice)

    Don't commit adultery: (choice)

    Don't wear gimp suits woven from two different fabrics, etc.: (All, choices)

    Are homosexuals supposed to live celibate lives, or force themselves to be with a woman against their nature? That isn't much of a choice for them... So why would god even create them that way if he wanted them to be with the opposite sex (a sex they have no desire for)?

    And what I'm saying is that one cannot compare the way one is born with an active choice, as I said above.

    I think it's kind of messed up, though, that some would be appointed to live, and some to die. How is someone who is appointed to live supposed to regard people appointed to die? Their family, friends, or even soul mates? If I knew I were going to heaven for all eternity, and my significant other would be utterly destroyed once we died, I would do anything to switch spots with her... I couldn't bear to live an eternity without her.

    Ah, so you don't believe in hell for people, alright.

    I refuse to regard people as little more than temporary distractions to throw away once they are done being used, but then again, I'm not a god.

    Hmmm... When god hardened Pharaoh's heart, and moses brought plague after plague, he may have been appointed for destruction, but were those who perished as well? What about the first born children who died? The canaanites (who suffered utter obliteration, supposedly)? Does that mean they are born soulless? How could one consider them as people, even, seeing as they aren't at the same level as those destined to be with god? What makes them different from mere animals at that point?
     
  5. Axe Elf

    Axe Elf Prophet

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,395
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Religion:
    zen Xian
    In SHORT???

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. robocop (actually)

    robocop (actually) Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    5,051
    Ratings:
    +1,336
    Religion:
    three years re-baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
    You completely missed my point! The scripture is essentially saying "If you find it detestable, you should outlaw it."
     
  7. Axe Elf

    Axe Elf Prophet

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,395
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Religion:
    zen Xian
    lol Yeah, I was largely being facetious--but I've seen a heck of a lot crazier interpretations of scripture around here!

    Don't pork a guy in the coal chute: (choice)

    Heterosexuals are born with desires for inappropriate behaviors as well, but it is their choice whether or not to act on them. And though it may be their choice to abstain from fornication, they were also born with an innate desire for this sexual immorality. To mirror your comments, are heterosexuals supposed to abstain from sex until they get married, or force themselves to use man-made rubber sleeves against their nature? That isn't much of a choice for them... So why would God even create them that way if He wanted them to abstain from sex before marriage (an abstinence they have no desire for)?

    In the end, though, I don't believe in free will, so being predestined for something, being created for something, being born a certain way, and making a choice all amount to the same thing--and, I suspect, appear that way to a God who can see every moment in time all at once, every "choice" already made and fixed in time like a fly caught in amber.

    So, your concern about it being unfair if nymphomania is sinful, because the nymphomaniac is just doing what God made them to do, along with the question of why would God create homosexuals if He wanted them to be with the opposite sex, and the extended question of why God made ANYONE the way they are, is answered in Romans:

    "And not only that, but this too: Rebecca conceived [two sons under exactly the same circumstances] by our forefather Isaac, and the children were yet unborn and had so far done nothing either good or evil. Even so, in order further to carry out God's purpose of selection (election, choice), which depends not on works or what men can do, but on Him Who calls [them], it was said to her that the elder [son] should serve the younger [son]. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob).

    "What shall we conclude then? Is there injustice upon God's part? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion (pity) on whom I will have compassion. So then [God's gift] is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God's mercy. [It depends not on one's own willingness nor on his strenuous exertion as in running a race, but on God's having mercy on him.] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for this very purpose of displaying My power in [dealing with] you, so that My name may be proclaimed the whole world over. So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.

    "You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will? But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use?" --Romans 9:10-21 (Amplified Bible)

    Why did God create liars? Gossips? Rapists? People who tear the tag off their mattress? We are ALL equally guilty of having a human nature that is necessary to this physical universe, but which is not appropriate for eternity in the presence of God. Period. End of story. Nobody is in any position to look down on anyone for anything. And none of us know who else has been appointed for salvation--in most cases, we probably won't be able to tell by their outward appearances--and who has been appointed for destruction. So I treat everyone the same, as someone doing only that which they were created to do, same as me.

    EVERYONE dies. Exactly when and where and how someone dies isn't really very important in the grand scheme of things. When I say, "appointed for destruction," I'm talking about the soul--whether it is appointed for salvation or destruction (the second death). EVERYONE is appointed for destruction in the physical sense--NO ONE here gets out alive.

    So I don't see why you would think that people who died in the plagues or in a genocide or in an earthquake or whatever were any different from any other people, who will also die. Of course they're not born soulless; they had souls like everyone else. Some of their souls may have even been appointed for salvation, though undoubtedly, a lot of the enemies of God and His people probably have been appointed for destruction. But we never know, so I have no problem treating everyone as having equal "personhood" in this life.

    Love 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Student People Stabber

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    84,408
    Ratings:
    +37,882
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    You have actually made my decision to not have children all the more appealing.
    How can you be in agony over not having kids if you never wanted any? Myself, I started to help raise them when I was 8, and now I work with them. I'm just fine and dandy and perfectly content without my own.
    As for not finding a mate lots of people do that, and it torments them in life. I work with a few of them as well. And then again there are those who don't desire such relationships, so how could it cause them agony reflecting upon not having something they didn't want?

    So? Lots of things the body sexually responds to isn't necessary for procreation. Nipple play, for example, serves no purpose in making babies yet it's something people enjoy.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Axe Elf

    Axe Elf Prophet

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,395
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Religion:
    zen Xian
    Titillating.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein I'm not deaf, I'm just a real bad listener
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    36,143
    Ratings:
    +21,688
    Religion:
    Catholic Christian
    Wtf with these giant walls of text. Damn!
     
  11. Aldrnari

    Aldrnari Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    477
    Ratings:
    +355
    Religion:
    Eclectic Agnostic
    Heh, interesting point, but meh... This is the kind of thing that bothers me. i'll explain below.

    Eh... And this is why I have a hard time buying the god of the bible. His character as portrayed in the bible just doesn't reflect the natural world we live in. For him to make sense, him and his rules have to exist outside the bounds of nature.

    Blaspheme is one of the worst sins I can commit, but I can scream profanities at god all I want from the mountain top and not be stricken dead. Maybe I find my punishment after death, but there is no real world consequences (at least, as far as sin vs. nature goes).

    It seems odd that god would hate something (such as homosexuality), and make it rampant in the world for not only people, but animals. It is a very common aspect of nature. Again, god's own creation seems to defy his rules, and that doesn't sit right with me...

    When I am inundated with various religious texts from around the world, how am I supposed to know to pick the one that doesn't reflect the reality I live in? I guess only if I'm created specifically to pick it?

    Interestingly, if this is the case, then why is there no physical evidence in egypt? No mass graves. No records of supernatural plagues (and the egyptians were very keen on records). Honestly, the only evidence I've ever seen of Egypt even acknowledging Israelites is in the Memeptah Stele as a footnote at the end of several conquered territories.

    Seems odd that the only record of this event ever even happening only comes exclusively from the bible. Again, the bible doesn't seem to reflect the world we live in...

    So might makes right? I'm not sure "because I said so" is a very convincing argument for righteousness.

    I see. Fair enough. :)

    Ah. Was speaking of the spiritual sense: spiritual death/destruction.

    Sorry, was trying to wrap my head around what you meant by "spiritual destruction," and how it applied to those created solely for god to make a point. If god was just planning on destroying Pharaoh's soul (who's heart he hardened) after using him to make his point, what about all the souls of the first born children he killed? Were they also created simply for god to kill and make his point, then dispose of? What about the souls of all of those canaanites he, through David, wiped out? Everyone who existed and was wiped out before the flood? Is this only reserved for those who have hardened their hearts against him, or those as well that he created simply to have killed to make a moral point (maybe even Jephthah's daughter)?

    Ah. Got it, thanks.

    Honestly, I find this spiritual outlook depressing. Why give people the illusion they are making their own choices if god is just going to make us do what he wants like sock puppets anyways?
     
  12. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    In that the your premise is that regardless of what god does it's always the right thing to do, you have the burden of demonstrating this to be true. Merely claiming this is what god is, doesn't cut it.

    On the other hand, if it can be shown that not everything god does is right, in essence, he made a mistake, it will demonstrate that he can be wrong. And capable of being wrong means that he cannot not be relied on to always be kind. Any asserted benevolence may not really be a benevolence at all. Therefore his omnibenevolence would not be a fact, but only a possibility to some extent or another. And being only a possibility "omnibenevolence" becomes a misnomer. So, has god ever done some not-right thing, in essence, make a mistake,which would negate any claim that he's always right? Sure, but first two notes:.

    1) Personal regret and personal repentance comes from not doing something correctly. If something is done correctly then there's no reason to regret it or repent it.

    2) Not doing something correctly amounts to making a mistake. Mistakes don't come from doing something correctly.
    The evidence that god made mistakes

    Genesis 6:6-7
    6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

    1 Samuel 15:10-11
    10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night.

    Exodus 32:14
    14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

    In essence: God's regret/repentance = mistake = capability of being wrong = one thing god does may be unbenevolent = omnibenevolence.


    That's silly, and I think you know it. But in case you don't: Innocent babies and puppies don't drown in hurricanes so we can have a life supporting atmosphere. The atmosphere would be exactly the same whether babies and puppies were involved or not. Their deaths are no more than an unfortunate chance of circumstance. A hurricane does not set out to kill babies and puppies. It's purposeless. God's decision to kill innocent babies and puppies is not. He knew he was killing innocent babies and did nothing to prevent it.

    .

    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    22,218
    Ratings:
    +8,109
    Religion:
    deist
    One thread, yet two differing title-questions.
    Thread Title asks:- God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

    Opening Post shows:- Interpretations by religious conservatives.
    :)



    All the above protected the whole tribe, nation or people from transmission of illnesses and sicknesses which would destroy the strength of it.
    Easy.

    Paul's (and other's) rant about homosexuality, which causes me to wonder about his own sexuality, seeing as how he never claimed to ever have been married and lived well past middle-age.
    Back then, if a man hadn't married by, say, 25 yrs, something was different, somehow. Paul was concealing and compensating, I reckon. Nothing to do with God.
    If one accepts the passages cited as those inspired of god, and their interpretation in accordance with conservative Christian understanding, can anyone explain why the Christian god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire"?

    Christians!...? Ah! ..... OK .... So you needed 'Christs'' opinion about homosexuality? Well, Jesus never even mentioned it. I don't know what any Christians would bother about it for.

    It wasn't about showing affection, it was about cutting out the transmission of sickness and disease through the people.
    The shellfish law was as important and critical as the
    sex laws, Christians just got sidetracked into some compulsively self-righteous mindset about 'sex' ion various ways.
    I blame Paul.........
     
  14. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    8,105
    Ratings:
    +4,563
    Religion:
    Catholic
    There is an inability to acknowledge that the 'word' in God's Word is human and spoken within a particular culture. It does God little justice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,248
    Ratings:
    +898
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Homosexuality does not take someone to Hell per the scriptures. Homosexuality is rather a marker of someone who isn't in touch with the divine plan and who needs help and healing. Many gay friends (and acquaintances) have told me they had broken relationships and/or were molested in their youth. They are in pain. How about focusing on the pain they experience instead of again taking (wrong) potshots at the scriptures? Or at least acknowledge that again, the Bible is shown as univocal? :)
     
  16. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    36,269
    Ratings:
    +22,102
    I think it does god little justice to presume that a bunch of dirty backward primitives spoke on his behalf.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,830
    Ratings:
    +15,640
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    Many people have broken relationships and childhood trauma.
    And those gays who don't have broken relationships or childhood trauma? What is it they need healing from other than the persistent and incessant pushing by some Christians who constantly tell them they're broken and need healing?

    Fortunately, less and less Christians behave this way, even with extreme holdouts in parts of the states.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  18. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    8,105
    Ratings:
    +4,563
    Religion:
    Catholic
    That's easy to say in hindsight. What makes you presume our attitude toward homosexuals would be any different than those 'dirty backward primitives' if we lived then and among that culture? I don't think that 'Bible thumpers' are the only people among today's culture that choose to ignore a sexual orientation in favor of perversion.
     
  19. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    36,269
    Ratings:
    +22,102
    Why would the ignorant, irrational, unsubstantiated, and arbitrary social norms of any human culture, past or present, have anything to do with god? God would be the most intelligent and logic being imaginable, right? Therefore, we can rule that anything unintelligent and illogical cannot be of god, regardless of what some silly scrawlings from ancient times may have said.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    12,613
    Ratings:
    +11,126
    To be fair the most pain gay people face usually comes from religious people (not all) telling them they are dysfunctional, broken, sinners, abominations or otherwise in opposition to God's plan or nature. Comparing them to child molesters or worse still implying that they are gay specifically because of sexual abuse. Ahem.
    Be told that your entire life and it certainly causes one to experience pain.
    Also the vast majority of gay people I know had near idyllic childhoods and never experienced abuse. Although I know many heterosexuals who can't say the same of their lives.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...