• 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!

ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

JoStories

Well-Known Member
I believe the Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel by God. "Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them, ‘I am Jehovah your God...You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act." (Leviticus 18:1,2,22)
While I respect your right to believe as you would like to, I'm left wondering why you adhere to that one precept but ignore others, such as was pointed out by Father Heathen. Can you explain why you adhere to this one particular verse and ignore the others that clearly were as much a part of the OT as what you point out? Or is your belief that myopic to fit your agenda?
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
At the risk of getting off topic, according to the Toronto Star and other sources, there are more people in slavery today then ever before. The Bible laws on slavery are far different then the oppressive slavery practiced today. Nowhere does the Bible condone mistreating or oppressing others. Oppressive slavery is but one of many evils practiced by a world alienated from God.
This is a very clear example of cherry picking what you wish to believe and what is actually written. Nowhere does the Bible condemn homosexual lifestyles as much as you would like it to. Furthermore, nowhere does it condemn lesbian relationships. Slavery was advocated in the Bible yet you point to the slavery of today as being heinous. How can you pick what you wish to believe and disregard the rest?
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
SO you are for slavery, as long it is not oppressive?
As I mentioned, slavery is just one of many evils men have visited on other humans. In due time, God will end all such slavery forever, IMO. (Romans 8:21) but we will always be slaves of God. So, no, I am not for one human being the slave of another. And again, this is way off topic.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually, many of the Founders were Christian (though most of them that most people can name were Deists), and Thomas Paine was not a Founder.
And, I would add the Treaty of Tripoli to your list, because it explicitly states that the United States was not founded upon Christian principles.


It doesn't matter how slaves are treated. Owning another human being is the inherent "sin" of slavery, and no matter how slaves are treated slavery is always a great evil that reduces a human being to a piece of property.
And, FYI, slavery back then was also very oppressive.
I am not going to address this further here, because it is off topic. If someone wants to discuss this in another thread, I will be happy to respond.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
LOL! Dude! Instead of checking translations - I suggest you check out the GREEK.

The word in question - I have highlighted for you in your post - is arsenokoitai.

As already shown - the word does NOT mean homosexual or "liers with males," etc.

I posted The authority on this - The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.”

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT - NO EARLY GREEK USES AS HOMOSEXUAL????

This word that you are trying to erroneously claim is about homosexuals - has been found used in texts concerning the RAPE of WOMEN.

*
I quoted the Greek text. It says what it says.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
First - it doesn't say that -

and second - it is talking AGAIN about Sacred Sex which verse 21 shows -

Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself; honor Elohiym, I am YHVH

*
Yes, it does say that. And verse 21 is talking about sacrificing children to the false god Molech:
"You must not allow any of your offspring to be offered to Moʹlech. You must not profane the name of your God in that way. I am Jehovah."
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, better tell God that science has proven that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, and He is telling people to be celibate when He made sex for us to express and take joy in.

It simply isn't true that homosexuals cannot change their behavior and desires. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) God purposed sex to be enjoyed within marriage. The perversion of sex has resulted in great harm to mankind, IMO.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I don't believe natural disasters are signs from God. Frankly, I'm surprised you do.

I don't, and I'm glad you don't either. The point is that some Christians like to point at a random disaster that happened while some controversy is going on elsewhere and claim that it was a sign of god that he's angry about it. Of course, they're very selective about it.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
As I mentioned, slavery is just one of many evils men have visited on other humans. In due time, God will end all such slavery forever, IMO. (Romans 8:21) but we will always be slaves of God. So, no, I am not for one human being the slave of another. And again, this is way off topic.
Do you acknowledge that the Bible specifically endorses slavery and lays out, at lengths and in detail, the extent to which one human being, their spouse and their children can be considered another person's property?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
i am about merging science and religion. that would apply to all religion: to judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, taoism, etc. to slowly converge to provable religion.
Oh hell no. Science had a long and tough battle trying to unshackle itself from that dead weight already. Why - now that science is accelerating at a greater pace than ever - would we want to hitch it right back up to religion?
 
Top