Are u going to leave USA now?

[sojourner]

You... missed the point. The plainness of the color example was simply equating the emotion of hating someone based on their preference of what is appealing to them. That paragraph wasn't about sin. The followup was, so let's move on.

I didn't miss the point. My point was that, if homosexual preference is simply like color preference, then you have no other argument. If, however, homosexual preference is more than that, then the initial comparison simply isn't cogent.

Sin is transgression against God's law and/or rebellion against God. You could also say, as some do, that it is also "missing the mark," or coming up short on the plans God has for our lives, but that's more a new covenant idea I think. Both are valid, in my opinion.

Aaaaand... according to Christian thought, how is homosexual orientation "missing the mark?" How is it a "transgression against God's law? God's law doesn't address homosexuality. If one is being true to one's self, how is it missing the mark?

As for homosexuality in the Bible, the actual list of citations would be extensive. Anywhere sexual immorality is referenced in the New Testament, for example, would be speaking against homosexuality.

Nope.

Beginning in the OT, the common reference of Leviticus 20:13 stands, but even the New Testament directly frames it in Romans 1:18-32, for example. Verse 26-27 being key.

Nope. None of those reference the natural homosexual orientation.

There wasn't necessarily a "gay" lifestyle in those times as we have now, so the language or verbiage may seem different, but contextually, they are describing what we call know as that lifestyle/act now.

Here's your big mistake. They aren't describing what we know as that lifestyle now, for we understand that lifestyle and what motivates it far differently than they did.

As for me saying people who identify as homosexuals are the embodiment of sin, I'm not sure why you think that. I was pretty clear all of us sin and fall short of the glory of God, hence why we need a savior.

Of course not. Because you're missing the point that homosexuality is an identity, not merely an act. Acts are sin. Identities are not.

Sin is serious.

Yes it is. So stop throwing it around like an old sock. Be specific about what you target, and be careful that you're not identifying any person as sin.

His is not necessarily any worse than any other.

He doesn't have sin with regard to his orientation.

We all suffer from it. But we don't need to. That's what I was saying.

Homosexuality isn't a condition from which one can "suffer," any more than one's skin color or one's religious expression.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe so. No, I haven't. Because, He is my Lord, my Savior, my God, and told me to keep His commandments. So that's what I do.

IOW, you're being true to yourself, no matter what someone else might think. All the poster is doing is Exactly. The. Same. Thing: being true to himself, no matter what you think. And for you to pass judgment on his validity as a human being based solely on what you believe is dehumanizing. And violent. Just as it was for the KKK to pass judgment upon MLK's validity as a human being based solely on what they believed.

 

[catch22]

Sojourner, I can't say it again. What you're describing is a semantic article not present in the languages, of the time, for which we are discussing. It doesn't get any clearer for people who read things at face value and can understand it. You clearly have some motivation outside of simple understanding for it to be invalidated for you.

1 Corinthians 6:9 should clear it up for you, but I doubt it will. Lev 18:22.... ? No? See, you just don't want to read what it says, so I'm not sure further discussion with you is lucrative.

Good day!

EDIT: IF you read the variations of 1 Cor 6:9-10, please don't stop there. Read verse 11 too.
EDIT2: Actually, just read the whole chapter, I think it's helpful.

 

[sojourner]

Like I said, there's no language in those societies for what you consider a gay/queer/homosexual life style now. It says two men lying together, as a man lies with a woman, is an abomination. It's clear to everyone but you, apparently.

What's clear is that, since there's no language, there's no concept for the orientation called "homosexuality." People weren't "homosexual" back then. Therefore the texts aren't talking about homosexual acts. They're simply referring to acts that were considered to be "unnatural." That's clear to everyone but you, apparently.

 

[sojourner]

It doesn't get any clearer for people who read things at face value and can understand it.

Therein lies the whole problem: reading the texts at face value, gleaning an "interpretation" from such reading and calling that "interpretation" "truth." When the texts are read at "face value," a full understanding generally isn't obtained.

You clearly have some motivation outside of simple understanding for it to be invalidated for you.

My motivation is that people understand what the writers actually meant, and then make a determination as to whether that meaning is cogent to the human condition today, and, if so, in what way. It just isn't as simple as saying, "the bible condemns homosexuality." Because it doesn't, if the texts are read properly.

 

[gsa]

The Leviticus text doesn't involve homosexuality -- and we're not at all sure what kind of male/male contact they're talking about -- only sure that they're not not talking about an act of love, since such an act would have been unheard of in that time and place. To insist that a modern interpretation be superimposed upon an ancient text, and then to insist that that particular interpretation is what "God said" is disingenuous and irresponsible, for the resulting interpretation is eisegetical, not exegetical.

We may not know what the idiomatic expression found in Leviticus was referring to at the time it was adopted, but we do know how it was interpreted since at least the end of the Second Temple period. We also cannot say that male relationships were unheard of; certainly sex was, and those societies were far more gender segregated than our own. Moreover, the anti-essentialist argument is overstated and there is every indication that people living in the earlier agricultural societies were aware of sexual propensities and habits, if not sexual orientation per se.

It is too easy to say that I am superimposing my own bias on the text. Given that the tradition of an anti-homosexuality interpretation has been more or less dominant since the Second Temple period, and given that we have no idea what the original meaning was, there has, in effect, only been an anti-homosexuality interpretation of the verse in question since the beginning of modern Judaism and Christianity. Yes, of course they are not discussing homosexuality as we conceive it today; for that matter they’re not discussing "sky," "moon" or "heavens" as we conceive of those things today. But they were certainly referencing some kind of sexual activity between two men, that brought death upon both sexual partners.

 

[sojourner]

See, you just don't want to read what it says, so I'm not sure further discussion with you is lucrative.

Actually, I do "want to read what it says" -- not what some cursory, modern understanding of an interpretation of ancient and foreign languages might suggest. If that's how you want to read the texts and continue to propagate an unfair judgment of our homosexual sisters and brothers, based upon an inadequate interpretation of the texts, then I'm going to have to continue to speak against such judgment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. I suppose if you don't see God as I do, things like worshiping graven images and blasphemy wouldn't make sense. Your harm/no-harm list doesn't apply to me. All of those things are harmful to someone. This includes the person performing or partaking in the act.

So, worshiping a graven image, while it "harms" no one else, it harms the person doing the worshiping. To make a secular example, this would be akin to doing nothing for drug addicts on the premise that it hurts no one but them. Even to the point where they kill themselves as a result. I'm not sure it's a superior moral code, but in a strictly pragmatic/secular society, morality need not apply or be present for common-good law (I think...)

The beauty of my morality is that by not worshiping anything, I can't ever commit the sin of worshiping a graven image.
As for drug addicts, they make their choices, & I don't have the right to interfere.
Of course, it they try to support their habit by robbing me, they won't like my choices.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Man, you are like a walking advertisement for Sigmund Freud.

(I better not have to explain this joke to anyone T_T )

Rude!

 

[sojourner]

Given that the tradition of an anti-homosexuality interpretation has been more or less dominant since the Second Temple period

No. It hasn't. Homosexuality as an orientation didn't enter the picture until much, much later.

But they were certainly referencing some kind of sexual activity between two men, that brought death upon both sexual partners.

And so then we need to seriously ask the question, "Why?" Why was male/male sex deserving of the death penalty? "Because God said so" isn't good enough. We can surmise that it had more to do with either 1) wasting one's seed in an act that absolutely could not result in propagation, or 2) the idea that shame and honor were sexually-embedded, making it necessary for one man to act shamefully (like a woman). Neither of those scenarios are in place any longer in our culture, therefore, the injunctions against the act are no longer cogent and need not be paid any moral heed, sort of like how it's now OK to wear clothing of mixed cloth and eat shellfish.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Being against it for mental illnesses is insulting and offensive. As for the rest, you may as well oppose all marriages because those things often happen in heterosexual relationships.
And, of course, there is a high comorbidity between gender dysphoria and some mental disorders, such as Asperger's syndrome.
Also, a few years ago (maybe several), a study showed that those with mental illnesses are more likely to use marijuana than the general population. And things such as depression and anxiety often lead to drug use, which in those circumstances

What is your point? Mental illnesses aren't good things, either.

If that was the case, the anus, mouth, and body in general, wouldn't be an erogenous zone.

Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Natural law says that body parts have purpose and misusing them leads to problems. Obviously anal sex is a risky, dirty affair. There also might be evolutionary reasons as to why anal sex was typically viewed as taboo in various cultures.

It's also interesting that someone who is transsexual would cite procreation as a reason for being opposed to homosexuality, since treatment renders us infertile.

That's a separate issue. The point of hormone therapy isn't to make you infertile. It's a side effect. I was never going to use those organs in the first place since that would've been too distressing and disgusting to me. Many intersex people are also infertile. It's not like I'm promoting it as a good thing. Being transsexual itself isn't a good thing - it's horrible and I wish to God that I didn't have this condition. But it is what it is. Sometimes things just go wrong in the process of a child's formation in the womb.

 

[sojourner]

All of those things are harmful to someone. This includes the person performing or partaking in the act.

In what way is homosexual expression/orientation harmful to either party (assuming both are consenting adults)? (To say, "Because the bible is against it" would represent circular logic). If you can name one valid way that homosexual orientation or expression is harmful to either party, I'll leave you alone. But it has to be valid.

 

[sun rise]

In what way is homosexual expression/orientation harmful to either party (assuming both are consenting adults)? (To say, "Because the bible is against it" would represent circular logic). If you can name one valid way that homosexual orientation or expression is harmful to either party, I'll leave you alone. But it has to be valid.

As a note, anyone who quotes Leviticus on ones prohibition should to be complete including all the other things that are included in a very extensive list. Cherry picking through the list of 76:

3. Eating fat (3:17)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) (KJV: linen and woolen)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)

https://did%3D76296e515badf6e5a9149caa532f9a04b7ac5d8b%3Bid%3D23730370413%3Bkey%3DCVUHzG3SYlcOIXYQL7INwQ%3Bname%3Dleviticusbans

 

[psychoslice]

i've seen it many times...anyone who does not accept homosexuality is insulted with being old fashioned, unreasonable, homophobic, bigoted and a whole host of other demeaning things.

Ha, try being a homosexual lol.

 

[psychoslice]

Leviticus, its a stupid book that's for sure lol.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're just repeating yourself. And your argument that it's due to discrimination falls apart because plenty of other groups have been discriminated against in society, yet they still thrived. Look at Jews. That's a group that's a probable winner of the Oppression Olympics going back centuries, but somehow they managed to become one of the most powerful groups in the world for such a small minority of the global population. That's to their credit as a people.

This argument simply doesn't work. Saying "it didn't happen to this group, so it shouldn't happen to another" is nothing but a red herring. Jews are a religious group united by a set of shared beliefs and tighter-knit communities. Homosexuals don't have that, and they usually don't even have the available support of their immediate family members or almost any other kind of coping mechanism.

I just saying that we need to look at other causes of this rather than being lazy and PC and falling back on the "it's discrimination!" excuse.

How is it lazy or "PC" to bring up decades of repression and discrimination as a probable root cause of poor mental health? How is it any less lazy than just blaming it on their sexual preference rather than looking at broader social issues?

And you STILL haven't answered my question: If "risky sexual behaviour" contributes to the poor mental health of homosexuals, then what "risky sexual behaviour" do lesbians engage in?

 

[gsa]

I don't think you understand the subject. The definition of "natural" in Natural Law means that things have teleological meaning, that they have a purpose. You can say that this purpose is the cause of nature, through pure evolution, or the cause of nature's God. Doesn't matter.

Evolution is the polar opposite of teleology. It cannot be invoked by natural law proponents. In fact, evolution is what demonstrates that natural law arguments are the opposite of self-evident.

 

[leibowde84]

i've seen it many times...anyone who does not accept homosexuality is insulted with being old fashioned, unreasonable, homophobic, bigoted and a whole host of other demeaning things.

This might be the most ironic comment I've ever read. You do realize that homosexuals have been dealing with discrimination like this from religious folk forever, right? If religious people can ridicule homosexuals, then more progressive minds should be able to ridicule religious people. The mere fact that something is a religious belief does not give it special protection from ridicule. It is fair game just like any other controversial view. The time when religious beliefs were off-limits went out about 30 years ago.

 

[leibowde84]

I dont think you should be tarring everyone with the same brush.

Not all Christians against homosexual practices are violently opposed. If i say i dont approve of it, that is not violent opposition.

If I say it is against Gods law, that is also not violent opposition.

But, it is insulting to homosexuals. So, if you express this belief, be ready for statements that you might find insulting in return. How is that unreasonable in the least? You reap what you sew. Religious beliefs don't get special protection from ridicule, as that would be ludicrous.

 

[Jainarayan]

As a note, anyone who quotes Leviticus on ones prohibition should to be complete including all the other things that are included in a very extensive list. Cherry picking through the list of 76: ...

I'll give a pass on the food issues because of Peter's alleged vision in which Jesus told him that any food is fit to eat. But that does not eradicate all the other injunctions in Leviticus. Jesus said not one jot or tittle would be stricken from the law until Heaven and Earth pass away. Moreover, he said he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So I don't see how Christians can pick and choose from Leviticus. Seems to me that all the other injunctions are still binding on them.