ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

[Monk Of Reason]

If homosexual couples surrogate or adopt at a similar rate as heterosexual marriages produce children, I would revise my position on secular marriages. Do you know the statistics?

https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf
According to the 2010 census a little under half of the married homosexual couples had children. Roughly 20% of all same sex married couples adopted at least one child.
I haven't been able to find official percentages of more recent years but every single source I have found states that it has increased substantially over the last five years.

 

[rusra02]

"I do what I want and pretend it's not hypocritical" is what you're saying. You choose to eat shellfish, eat meat & milk, ignoring the dietary laws, you choose to wear clothes of mixed fiber, but you also choose to follow the bit on sodomy because...why? You just don't like gay people?

There is no prohibition in the Mosaic Law against eating milk or milk. As I mentioned, Christians are not under the Law of Moses, since this law was made with only the nation of Israel, and is no longer in effect. (Hebrews 8:13)

 

[rusra02]

So the genocide, commandment to marry rape victims to their rapists, stoning, and murder in the Old Testament all reflect your god's way of thinking?

Since your comment is off-topic, I will only say none of the things you mentioned accurately reflect what the Bible really says. This is probably addressed in a new topic for discussion.

 

[Nietzsche]

There is no prohibition in the Mosaic Law against eating milk or milk. As I mentioned, Christians are not under the Law of Moses, since this law was made with only the nation of Israel, and is no longer in effect. (Hebrews 8:13)

So what makes sodomy or homosexuality different? Why does that still apply and the dietary & clothing laws do not? As for milk & meat, you're right that isn't Mosaic. It's one of the commandments. As for NT & homosexuality, you've only got Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and even those three are extremely open to interpretation, as the words used can also(and most often) mean adultery, pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality.

 

[chevron1]

If it's unrealistic for me to expect conflicting opinions to commune, how is it not even more unreasonable for you to expect conflicting beliefs to all change their mind and adopt the same beliefs?

they will adopt the same beliefs because if it is science, you can prove it. will you deny proof just because you belong to another religion? does that include denying salvation?

Total nonsense. You might as well argue that science has always worked with the cheese industry and ghost hunters, because their taxes also paid for the moon landing.

well, science has worked with those industries and they do pay taxes and they do lobby their congressional leaders for their point of view.

It's about acceptance of all religious positions, without any one religious position or organization holding power over others. There is no requirement to adhere to any specific moral structure other than those imposed by law.

does that mean if one religion condones murder that all the rest in this communal utopia must agree and set the killer free?

 

[chevron1]

I keep asking this question, but other than you and Chevron, WHO CARES? Our laws are not based on anyone's holy book, nor should they be. If they were, we'd still have slavery, because that little gem "thou shalt not own another person" didn't make the top 10 list. Which incidentally, finds its home in the OT that apparently only applies to Jews.

marisa, i don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Marisa]

There is no prohibition in the Mosaic Law against eating milk or milk. As I mentioned, Christians are not under the Law of Moses, since this law was made with only the nation of Israel, and is no longer in effect. (Hebrews 8:13)

Do you support disregarding the OT entirely, or just the parts that make it difficult for you to engage in reasoned conversation on this subject?

 

[Marisa]

marisa, i don't know what you're talking about.

I find that wholly unsurprising.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no prohibition in the Mosaic Law against eating milk or milk. As I mentioned, Christians are not under the Law of Moses, since this law was made with only the nation of Israel, and is no longer in effect. (Hebrews 8:13)

Actually the Old laws clearly define what meats can and cannot be eaten.
And, of course, Jesus said he did not come to do away with those old laws and the prophets.
As for Paul and the NT, Paul, where the "anti-gay" bits come from, displayed more signs of schizophrenia than he did the teachings of Christ.

 

[JoStories]

I think that even though Christians are not under God's Law to Israel, We can learn much about God's thinking and standards from this Law. They are part of "All Scripture...inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." And God's prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and other sins are also forbidden under the Christ's Law.

Where in the NT does Christ speak about homosexuality? And we are not talking about Christ talking about one man and one women. I am asking where he spoke out against homosexuality. Also, NOT Paul. Can you point out those passges where Christ did this?

 

[rusra02]

Actually the Old laws clearly define what meats can and cannot be eaten.
And, of course, Jesus said he did not come to do away with those old laws and the prophets.
As for Paul and the NT, Paul, where the "anti-gay" bits come from, displayed more signs of schizophrenia than he did the teachings of Christ.

Yes, the Law does define what meat could be eaten but it does not prohibit eating meat and milk, as the post I responded to claimed.
Jesus said; "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place." (Matthew 5:17,18) I believe Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law, and then mediated the new covenant that replaced the Law covenant. (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15)
Two common tricks done by those who don't like what the Bible says is:
* Claim it doesn't mean what it plainly says, or is mistranslated
* Claim the human writer was biased or or otherwise attack the writer's character.

 

[rusra02]

Where in the NT does Christ speak about homosexuality? And we are not talking about Christ talking about one man and one women. I am asking where he spoke out against homosexuality. Also, NOT Paul. Can you point out those passges where Christ did this?

I am not aware of any direct statement Jesus made regarding homosexuality. Neither did he directly mention other practices such as spiritism as a sin, although spiritism is clearly condemned in the Greek Scriptures. He did point to the example of Sodom's destruction as a warning for us; "But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed." (Luke 17:29,30) Jude 7 mentions that "In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." The fact that Jesus made no direct mention of homosexuality is not relevant. He kept God's Law perfectly and urged others to do so. (Matthew 5:17-19) This included the injunction against homosexual conduct mentioned at Leviticus 18:22.

 

[Marisa]

Yes, the Law does define what meat could be eaten but it does not prohibit eating meat and milk, as the post I responded to claimed.
Jesus said; "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place." (Matthew 5:17,18) I believe Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law, and then mediated the new covenant that replaced the Law covenant. (Hebrews 8:13, 9:15)
Two common tricks done by those who don't like what the Bible says is:
* Claim it doesn't mean what it plainly says, or is mistranslated
* Claim the human writer was biased or or otherwise attack the writer's character.

And the most common trick of apologists who don't like what the bible says is to redefine words like "fulfill" and phrases like "pass away", which would mean to "no longer practice". No need to attack the writer's character, when you are the one trying to decipher meaning. It's not the writers fault for writing a book of crap that gets taken as valuable, but if you exalt that crap and insist we must also, you get charged with defending it.

 

[Marisa]

I am not aware of any direct statement Jesus made regarding homosexuality. Neither did he directly mention other practices such as spiritism as a sin, although spiritism is clearly condemned in the Greek Scriptures. He did point to the example of Sodom's destruction as a warning for us; "But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed." (Luke 17:29,30) Jude 7 mentions that "In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." The fact that Jesus made no direct mention of homosexuality is not relevant. He kept God's Law perfectly and urged others to do so. (Matthew 5:17-19) This included the injunction against homosexual conduct mentioned at Leviticus 18:22.

You choose a story about a man who was praised by your God for offering his daughter up to be raped to illustrate moral value??????

 

[rusra02]

You choose a story about a man who was praised by your God for offering his daughter up to be raped to illustrate moral value??????

You seem to have a wonderful talent for getting off-topic. If you really want to talk about Lot, start a thread and I will meet you there.

 

[Marisa]

You seem to have a wonderful talent for getting off-topic. If you really want to talk about Lot, start a thread and I will meet you there.

And your powers of deflection are super human. You are attempting to prove that the bible contains relevant moral lessons. I'm showing you why it doesn't. You don't get to present something as evidence and not have that thing evaluated. Keep presenting the bible and your god as exemplary of superior morality and it WILL continue to be evaluated. And when it gets too uncomfortable for you to address the cogent points made in that regard, you can whine about being "off topic" or just blatantly ignore the point altogether, which you've done more than once.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Is it your position that there are no persons who once practiced homosexuality but now no longer do so?

Sure, they become celibate, and sure, gays have pretended to be straight to fit in or hoped that they can stop being gay, but not one changes their orientation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is it your position that there are no persons who once practiced homosexuality but now no longer do so?

They are still gay but simply repressing their sexuality in an unhealthy way.

 

[JoStories]

I am not aware of any direct statement Jesus made regarding homosexuality. Neither did he directly mention other practices such as spiritism as a sin, although spiritism is clearly condemned in the Greek Scriptures. He did point to the example of Sodom's destruction as a warning for us; "But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed." (Luke 17:29,30) Jude 7 mentions that "In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." The fact that Jesus made no direct mention of homosexuality is not relevant. He kept God's Law perfectly and urged others to do so. (Matthew 5:17-19) This included the injunction against homosexual conduct mentioned at Leviticus 18:22.

It always fascinates me the way people of faith pick and choose what they wish to believe. Jesus never said you should be able to eat shellfish, pork, wear mixed fibers, etc, either but you don't adhere to that. And the phrases "gross sexual immaturity" and "unnatural fleshly desires" can be interpreted quite a number of ways. Let's not forget that Lot was allowed to have sex with his daughters too, apparently with God's permission. And then you choose to think that because ther is no mention by Jesus that that means he continues to adhere to OT precepts but of course only the ones that fit your current agenda.

 

[JoStories]

You seem to have a wonderful talent for getting off-topic. If you really want to talk about Lot, start a thread and I will meet you there.

exactly how is that off topic? We are talking here about sexual practices that are considered, by your own terminology, to be 'unnatural fleshly desires". you dont get to pick and choose which are contained therein. Lot was incestuous and I can think of few sexual practices more unnatural than that. Do you honestly wish to condone incest here?