God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?

[Mudcat]

But no one knows what all of the originals said. On the other hand, it is well-known even by some conservative Christian Bible scholars that the Bible contains errors and interpolations. And that is just the obvious errors and interpolations. The originals might not have said anything about homosexuality, and even if they did, it cannot be reasonably proven that God inspired those texts.

That is quite a lot of speculation on your part, to suggest the Bible was actually silent on the matter. You have both OT and NT citations that there were such moral injunctions. There is quite a bit of fairly early dated manuscript evidence for injunction in NT. The Qumran texts, seem to validate a fairly accurate transmission of OT text.

You are quite right though, we don't have the originals. That being said, do you actually feel it more reasonable to conclude they didn't actually address homosexuality?
If so why?

Do you believe that a global flood occured, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?

I don't see the relevance here, but to answer in order:
Not likely.
Nope.
Yes, but likely quite a bit different than we see as depicted in the Genesis account.

Since the world is seriously overpopulated, not underpopulated, it is amazing that anyone still uses that argument.

That is a false claim.

In 1970 the worlds total population was about half what it is today and 26% of the world population was malnourished.

Today, our population is nearly doubled that and the percentage of malnourished people have decreased to 13%.

Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Apparently, bi-sexuality has not threatened the survival of bonobo monkeys.

I don't see the relevance here. What percentage of bonobo monkeys are human and/or read the Bible?
Also what percentage of bonobo monkeys are exclusively homosexual?

Are you aware that sexual identity (sexual urges) is not a choice?

No, I am not aware of this.

If so, why are you criticizing homosexuality? What do you want homosexuals to do, practice abstinence for life?

My criticism towards homosexuality is that it is a sin before God. I don't think I am more critical towards it, than any other sin that does not necessarily imply signifcant violence.

Personally, I would like homosexuals to recognize that God does speak against such actions, and should they commit to follow Christ, it would be my hope they would seek to work their way out of such action.

You are looking for practical, secular arguments against homsoexuality, but there aren't any.

No I don't think I am looking for any.

Do you have any practical, secualar arguments against divorce?

Irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see the validity of a "some not all" defense. According to scripture, God has put forth that homosexual acts are against nature and wrong in his sight.

God's command was to be fruitful.. multiply.

But what of those heterosexuals who, through either choice or poor fortune, don't go forth and multiply? God certainly doesn't condemn them. So this can hardly be a factor in his condemnation of homosexual activities.

If all preferred their own sex, this would certainly be counter reproductive for the species. The human race would have died out shortly after it's inception, if such were the case.

Yes it would, but as I've already pointed out, god knows what the score is: only a small percentage of people are homosexual. So he's well aware that such people won't have any impact on the success of the human race.

In the case of a limited percentage of homosexual preference, then less of the species will reproduce. This has a cascade effect as you span it across time. Just using the example of 5% that do not reproduce because of sexual preference, and assuming a total population of 100 billion people across time.. then minimally 5 billion people, were never born due to same gender preference.

So what's the deal, god needs millions upon millions of people on earth, no matter how many may suffer from inadequacies? FYI, in 2010 there were 925 million hungry people in world, 19 million in developed countries alone.* And, according to the World Health Organization "fifty million people have some degree of mental impairment caused by Iodine deficiency disorders."* Considering this sorry state of affairs god either likes to have suffering people around, and would actually welcome more, or he doesn't care that they suffer. Moreover, as UltraViolet points out, birth control of any kind, even abstinence, pre-ejaculatory withdrawal, and the rhythm method would be no-nos; perhaps sins?

Assumptive

Of course it is, but do you think a significant number of homosexuals would engage in heterosexual intercourse if they couldn't be physically active with someone of their own sex? If you couldn't have sex with a female would you opt to have a homosexual encounter? Maybe you would, but I believe you'd be in the minority.

There is a general Christian principal that a person can sin in their heart as well as through action. So I don't agree.

Whether you agree or not, according to those who feel they have a handle on the Bible, god never condemns homosexual orientation in the Bible, only homosexual activity. And, in as much as homosexual orientation has never been shown to be a choice, but rather a naturally occurring predisposition it is also argued by these Christian interpreters of the Bible that this means homosexual orientation doesn't qualify as a sin, and is why god only singled out the acts.

All of which brings us back to my original question: WHY? Unless god doesn't care about suffering, it can't be a matter of numbers---more people = more suffering. And, as some have pointed out, it's more than just an ick factor, so why?

*source

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Hi Mudcat!

I've been following your conversation with Agnostic75 with much interest. First I wanted to say that your statistics on world malnutrition are dead on - I was quite surprised that the percentage was so low!

I also noticed that you mentioned that you were not aware that sexual orientation is not a choice. There actually is a large amount of research being done on whether sexual orientation is determined genetically. While no one can point to one specific gene and say - that's the one - there is a growing body of evidence that genetics plays some factor. Here is a link to one (of many) studies that had some interesting findings:
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity

I would also agree with you that texts like the Qumran scrolls seem to indicate that the Old Testament writings have been handed down pretty much intact, and that Jewish and Christian writings are consistent in their negative view of homosexuality. How relevant those passages should be today is an argument that will probably be ongoing in Christian circles for quite some time.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Mudcat]

But what of those heterosexuals who, through either choice or poor fortune, don't go forth and multiply? God certainly doesn't condemn them. So this can hardly be a factor in his condemnation of homosexual activities.

As for poor fortune, well there isn't much I can say in that way but neither do I see that is relevant. Neither do I see failure to multiply by choice as relevant to the issue. IMO, they are independent from one another. But the Bible does not say much in way of contraception. Here is an instance though.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Yes it would, but as I've already pointed out, god knows what the score is: only a small percentage of people are homosexual. So he's well aware that such people won't have any impact on the success of the human race.

Your repeating your previous argument here. I offered a counter scenario in my previous post that you did not respond to meaningfully.

So what's the deal, god needs millions upon millions of people on earth, no matter how many may suffer from inadequacies? FYI, in 2010 there were 925 million hungry people in world, 19 million in developed countries alone.* And, according to the World Health Organization "fifty million people have some degree of mental impairment caused by Iodine deficiency disorders."* Considering this sorry state of affairs god either likes to have suffering people around, and would actually welcome more, or he doesn't care that they suffer. Moreover, as UltraViolet points out, birth control of any kind, even abstinence, pre-ejaculatory withdrawal, and the rhythm method would be no-nos; perhaps sins?

Your picture of a sorry state of affairs is a red herring. I addressed this in my post to Agnostic75.

However, if as I believe God's intention is to draw as many people freely to him in a love relationship with him, then more people being brought into the world would likely be part of his aims.

Of course it is, but do you think a significant number of homosexuals would engage in heterosexual intercourse if they couldn't be physically active with someone of their own sex? If you couldn't have sex with a female would you opt to have a homosexual encounter? Maybe you would, but I believe you'd be in the minority.

Again its just speculation on your part.

Whether you agree or not, according to those who feel they have a handle on the Bible, god never condemns homosexual orientation in the Bible, only homosexual activity. And, in as much as homosexual orientation has never been shown to be a choice, but rather a naturally occurring predisposition it is also argued by these Christian interpreters of the Bible that this means homosexual orientation doesn't qualify as a sin, and is why god only singled out the acts.

Yes this is third offering of that notion on this post.

A study that refutes Yeshe Dawa's link to a previous study. It also refutes Agnostic75 and your assertions. Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28

There are studies of twins, where one is straight and the other gay which are also compelling that choice has more to do with it than a genetic predisposition.

I am not dismissive of studies that would indicate otherwise, however I think the fact that there are a number of conflicting studies on the matter it would be reasonable to conclude we aren't close to an answer on the matter. I don't see any serious need to take what you have said as factual and you may want to rethink the validity of such assertions.


http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My criticism towards homosexuality is that it is a sin before God.

Actually, God approves of homosexuality. He thinks it's just fine.

 

[McBell]

But the Bible does not say much in way of contraception. Here is an instance though.

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Unfortunately the story of Onan has absolutely nothing to do with contraception.
Onan was flat out told to impregnate his sister-in-law and he chose to defy the order.

 

[Skwim]

As for poor fortune, well there isn't much I can say in that way but neither do I see that is relevant. Neither do I see failure to multiply by choice as relevant to the issue.

Then I'm sorry for your shortsightedness.

Your repeating your previous argument here. I offered a counter scenario in my previous post that you did not respond to meaningfully.

But it was meaningful. Your argument is specious because it does not represent the facts of the matter, only a "what if" that has no relevance to actuality. It's like asking, what if everyone was born sterile then where would the human race be? The fact is, not everyone is born sterile and not everyone is homosexual. You can suppose all kinds of silly nonsense, just leave it out of your conversation here. It doesn't sell.

Your picture of a sorry state of affairs is a red herring.

No it isn't. It goes right to the point of the implication of your claim: god needs as many people as possible on the planet. I can only ask how you know this and why is it true?

I addressed this in my post to Agnostic75.

That's very nice, but I'm not about to comb through your previous posts to find it.

Again its just speculation on your part.

No it isn't. It's two questions and a statement of belief. But speaking of making speculations, do you think your claim that god needs/misses "the minimally 5 billion people, [that] were never born due to same gender preference." isn't speculation? If not, I assume you have some chapter and verse to back this up. In any case, how about answering my two questions.

1) Do you think a significant number of homosexuals would engage in heterosexual intercourse if they couldn't be physically active with someone of their own sex?

2) If you couldn't have sex with a female would you opt to have a homosexual encounter?
​

Yes this is third offering of that notion on this post.

A study that refutes Yeshe Dawa's link to a previous study. It also refutes Agnostic75 and your assertions. Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28

If it were possible I would bet good money that you haven't the faintest idea of what Microsatellite Markers at Xq28 are. So don't even go there. Besides this twelve year-old study has been long surpassed by others that do indicate a genetic link. In fact, it looks like a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics, and it may be the single biggest factor we know of.

I am not dismissive of studies that would indicate otherwise, however I think the fact that there are a number of conflicting studies on the matter it would be reasonable to conclude we aren't close to an answer on the matter. I don't see any serious need to take what you have said as factual and you may want to rethink the validity of such assertions.

Hey, if you don't want to familiarize yourself with the facts and what is going on around you I'm not about to waste my time doing it for you. There is Google, you know. Try "homosexuality" and "genetics," or some such combinations.

 

[Hypersonic]

Why are you commenting from strictly the biblical perspective?

 

[Skwim]

Why are you commenting from strictly the biblical perspective?

Who are you addressing?

 

[Agnostic75]

Are you aware that sexual identity (sexual urges) is not a choice?

No, I am not aware of this.

Well it is. Even most conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality know that. Whatever gave you the notion that people can choose whatever sexual urges they want to have? Some homosexuals who have wanted to change their sexual urges and become heterosexuals in order to avoid prejudice have tried to change their sexual urges, but were not successful.

Sexual urges at puberty are a response to genetics, environment, or a combination of both, not the result of careful study and choice.

 

[Agnostic75]

No one knows what all of the originals said. On the other hand, it is well-known even by some conservative Christian Bible scholars that the Bible contains errors and interpolations. And that is just the obvious errors and interpolations. The originals might not have said anything about homosexuality, and even if they did, it cannot be reasonably proven that God inspired those texts.

That is quite a lot of speculation on your part, to suggest the Bible was actually silent on the matter.

Do you believe that God inspired and preserved all of the originals free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors? If so, based upon what evidence? If not, how do you determine which parts God preserved, and which parts he did not preserve?

You have both OT and NT citations that there were such moral injunctions.

But there are not any original first century citations about homosexuality, and the oldest copies probably date centuries after Christ. Still, I believe that it is probable that first century Bible writers had personal prejudices against homosexuality and falsely believed that God opposes homosexuality.

Even perfectly preserved citations from the first century would not reasonably prove that God inspired them.

You said that you do not believe that a global flood occured. Do you believe that a localized flood occured? If so, why? Obviously, a global flood does not make any sense, but a localized flood doesn't either. Neither does the posting of guards at the tomb of Jesus, and hundreds of other claims.

What evidence do you have that the God of the Bible exists? Even if he does exist, there is no way to know exactly which texts he inspired, and which texts he preserved.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Hi Agnostic75!

I agree with your basic premise, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, and that it isn't chosen by those who have a homosexual orientation. However, I think you will be hard pressed to prove an argument that the Christian holy texts do not oppose it, or that it hasn't been opposed for the majority of Christian history, with the exception of some modern liberal denominations.

You also mentioned a localized flood not being a possible source of the flood myth in Genesis. My understanding from my World Mythology class is that many cultures around the world have flood myths, especially in the Mediterranean and Middle East, and that the general consensus among anthropologists is that these myths are grounded in an actual flood event.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Acim]

1) Do you think a significant number of homosexuals would engage in heterosexual intercourse if they couldn't be physically active with someone of their own sex?

2) If you couldn't have sex with a female would you opt to have a homosexual encounter?

Yes and Yes.

That was easy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sexual urges at puberty are a response to genetics, environment, or a combination of both, not the result of careful study and choice.

Verily. What kind of suicidal idiot would carefully choose to be homosexual -- even in the more relaxed Western world?

 

[Skwim]

Yes and Yes.

That was easy.

Evidently Mudcat doesn't think so.

 

[otokage007]

You don't have to be christian to be disgusted or hate homosexuals. It's something we see everyday.

You like Real Madrid instead of Barça? YOU ******

You like Britney Spears instead of Lady Gaga? You sure are a little b****

You prefer to dress in light blue instead of sexy red? OMG what an IDIOT you are.

You like boys instead of girls? Damn you are just ******************

People just don't understand why the things they like, just don't like to others, and that makes them kind of angry. Also, it can be quite irritating to see a guy after you if you are not gay.

It has nothing to do with christianity, the ones who wrote the Bible just hated homosexuality because they hated it, there's no other reason.

EDIT: i see the questions now - Yes and Yes. Flesh is weak.

 

[Agnostic75]

You also mentioned a localized flood not being a possible source of the flood myth in Genesis. My understanding from my World Mythology class is that many cultures around the world have flood myths, especially in the Mediterranean and Middle East, and that the general consensus among anthropologists is that these myths are grounded in an actual flood event.

Consider the following Scriptures from the NASB:

Genesis 9

11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations;

13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.

14 It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud,

15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Those Scriptures indicate that the flood was global. It would not have made any sense for God to promise never to destroy life with a flood again in a small geographic region "for all successive generations" since eventually, Noah's descendants would become spread all over the world, and obviously, a localized flood could not threaten all of Noah's descendants thousands of years later.

 

[otokage007]

Here an interesting link that explains why homosexuality isn't bad at all.

[youtube]n52f3dyegPc[/youtube]
‪Lady Gaga - Born this way Official Music Video 'Vevo HQ (Short Version)‬‏ - YouTube

Amen

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Consider the following Scriptures from the NASB:




Those Scriptures indicate that the flood was global. It would not have made any sense for God to promise never to destroy life with a flood again in a small geographic region "for all successive generations" since eventually, Noah's descendants would become spread all over the world, and obviously, a localized flood could not threaten all of Noah's descendants thousands of years later.

Hi Agnostic75!

My apologies! I thought you meant that a historical, localized flood couldn't have been the source of the flood myth in Genesis. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis passage, then you are right - a localized flood does not support your beliefs because the passage explicitly says it was global.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75!

My apologies. I thought you meant that a historical, localized flood couldn't have been the source of the flood myth in Genesis. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis passage, then you are right - a localized flood does not support your beliefs because the passage explicitly says it was global.

I do not believe that a God inspired any of the Bible, but if a person believes that God inspired the Genesis flood story, only a global flood makes sense based upon my previous post. It would obviously be ridiculous for a God to destroy life in Miami, Florida with a flood and tell his followers that for all successive generations, he would never destroy life in Miami again with a flood. Only a global flood makes sense in the context of Genesis chapter 9. God's covenant never to destroy life again with a flood was for all of Noah's descendants for all future generations. Thousands of years later, Noah's descendants would be scattered all over the world. Those who did not live in Miami in the distant future would not have any concern for another localized flood in Miami, but they would have concern for another global wherever they lived in the world.