1 Corinthians 6:9,10 mentions thieves right after mentioning homosexual practices. If you have evidence these verses were additions, please present it. There is no evidence but wishful thinking among proponents of such unnatural practices.
-
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!
Being A Homosexual is not a Sin.
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 mentions thieves right after mentioning homosexual practices. If you have evidence these verses were additions, please present it. There is no evidence but wishful thinking among proponents of such unnatural practices.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
What do you think "unnatural" means?
Unless you're asexual, I don't see how abstaining from sex for long periods of time is healthy. I also don't value virginity and see this idolization of virginity to be a sexist control scheme to control women's sexuality.
Being sexually active does not mean you are promiscuous.
But what I was talking about here is non-hetero people who repress their sexuality due to guilt and shame. That's more than just being abstinent. That's self-hatred.
Wtf?
Provide evidence for this claim, please. I know you can't because SRA is a hoax borne out of the delusions of fundie Christians from 30+ years ago.
Yes, I've looked at your book and believed in it for years. I also know my history. There's no need for you to try to use the Bible to prove itself. My comment stands.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
What about pedophiles?
Apparently because his consort, Asherah, dumped him when he got a huge ego and started shoving the rest of the pantheon aside to take pride of place. He's had blue balls ever since.
Those verses are mistranslated and misinterpreted. The ancients didn't have any concept of sexual orientation as we do. To sum it up, they had no concept of "sexual orientation". Their ideas about sex were wrapped up in social mores and expectations to marry and have children. So the ancients didn't care if you were attracted to your same gender. In many cultures, it was fine for a married man to get it on with another male (in the case of Greco-Roman culture, it was fine for a citizen to have sex with a passive slave or adolescent).
So, with that in mind, those verses are probably referring to Pagan practices such as temple prostitution, pederasty and other Pagan practices. You have to keep in mind the context of such rules. The Jews were trying so hard to carve out a different identity from the surrounding cultures (because they really did have a different identity in the first place - it developed later) that they proscribed many practices that the non-Abrahamics were in involved in. So it was more of an anti-Pagan thing than anything to do with sex, probably.
Pedophiles or anyone else shouldn't feel guilt or shame over their attractions. That's counter-productive and unhealthy. We all should accept ourselves as we are. For those with desires that aren't legal to act on, they need to seek non-judgemental support to keep them from offending. But they should accept themselves first. Hating yourself causes lots of stress and can lead to wrong behavior.
Sees
Dragonslayer
It makes some sense...still like my theory though, if only because I love irony
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Actually, God fully supports homosexuality. Please don't get confused about God's stance toward that.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
But my point was they should refrain from expressing their desires, right? so what you said before about repression is not applicable to everyone, right?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
It makes some sense...still like my theory though, if only because I love irony
What was your theory?
It makes some sense...still like my theory though, if only because I love irony
Sex itself probably did play a role in it, though. It was common in some cultures to view being the passive partner in homosexual acts as being "unmasculine". They thought that being on the recieving end was inherently womanly and so it was seen as a big insult. Women were seen as inferior and you definitely didn't want to be seen as on the level of a woman.
So there's that consideration, too. If you notice, lesbian acts aren't mentioned at all in the OT laws. Women were mostly seen as property in that culture and since there was no danger of another women knocking a woman up, they didn't care too much, it would seem.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Yeah, the second class female is definitely tied to this stuff in witnessing that what we are dealing with is ancient cultural bigotry, not divine decree.
Sex itself probably did play a role in it, though. It was common in some cultures to view being the passive partner in homosexual acts as being "unmasculine". They thought that being on the recieving end was inherently womanly and so it was seen as a big insult. Women were seen as inferior and you definitely didn't want to be seen as on the level of a woman.
So there's that consideration, too. If you notice, lesbian acts aren't mentioned at all in the OT laws. Women were mostly seen as property in that culture and since there was no danger of another women knocking a woman up, they didn't care too much, it would seem.
I think you and I are talking about two separate things:
Psychological repression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexual repression isn't just when you can't have sex. It's also ignoring the urges, denying them, trying to shove them to the back of your mind, self-hatred over the urges, etc. Pedophiles can still do things like masturbate. However, many religious groups proscribe "feeding" the desires at all. So a gay person would not be allowed to masturbate to their fantasies or anything like that.
Anyway, bringing up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality makes me suspicious and a bit uncomfortable.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Sorry about that. I think you know me well enough to know I'm not making a connection between the two. I was just addressing your comment about repression. Now that you've explained it I do agree.