Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[sojourner]

Most humans throughout human history have agreed with me concerning texts so as usual your using flawed conclusions.

This is the bandwagon fallacy: everyone believes it, so it must be true.

 

[sojourner]

Full blown homosexuality or heterosexual dabbling in it, god detested it. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:" So maybe god does lump the dabblers in with the true homosexuals in his condemnation. He certainly doesn't qualify his hatred, does he. A lot of homosexuality or a tiny bit of hetero-homosexuality seems to be all that's necessary to qualify as an abomination

Why would you assume “God detests it.” Why wouldn’t you assume that the writers detested it?

Because that is thee principle form of homosexuality: adults with adults

No. It’s not. There are plenty of gay adolescents out there having sex.

I don't have to prove anything. You're the one who is trying to establish this unstated, unimplied qualification so as to save god's plainly stated wrath against homosexuality

How is it “God’s plainly stated wrath,” and how do you leap to the conclusion that “homosexuality” is the subject of it? You’re making assumptions.

This is so sophomoric. Just because the Bible says god hates homosexuality, and I don't try to candy-coat it or bury it under ridiculous apologetics doesn't mean I hate or even dislike homosexuals

No, the Bible doesn’t say, “God hates homosexuality.” Read again. It ain’t in there, except in some biased translations of the texts. And that’s not the authors’ issue, but the translators’ issue.

 

[sojourner]

Any look at histories greatest painters, sculptors, and thinkers is packed full of heterosexuals. This is the weirds defense of homosexuality I have ever seen

Blinders.

 

[sojourner]

So, when did you choose?

Great question. The assumption that heterosexuality is the “norm” subverts the homosexual, which is systemic violence.

 

[kiwimac]

Get back to the topic please.



Still not an argument or anything else requiring a response.



Yes caused by homosexual sex. That is why they did not relate it to anything else.

You are aware that homosexual sex is not the sole vector for HIV/AIDS? HIV/AIDS can be spread not only through contact with semen but also blood and breast milk.

"...It is commonly transmitted through sexual contact, intravenous drug use, or from a mother to her baby during pregnancy, child birth, or breastfeeding..."

Source

 

[kiwimac]

Why would you assume “God detests it.” Why wouldn’t you assume that the writers detested it?


No. It’s not. There are plenty of gay adolescents out there having sex.


How is it “God’s plainly stated wrath,” and how do you leap to the conclusion that “homosexuality” is the subject of it? You’re making assumptions.


No, the Bible doesn’t say, “God hates homosexuality.” Read again. It ain’t in there, except in some biased translations of the texts. And that’s not the authors’ issue, but the translators’ issue.

Like most atheists you are far more of a biblical fundamentalist than many Christians and just like them you ignore societal contexts. As for "God hating homosexuality" Ahura Mazda has never hated homosexuality although some followers might.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like most atheists you are far more of a biblical fundamentalist than many Christians and just like them you ignore societal contexts. As for "God hating homosexuality" Ahura Mazda has never hated homosexuality although some followers might.

@sojourner is not an atheist.

 

[kiwimac]

I wasn't actually talking to Sojourner but to Skwim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't actually talking to Sojourner but to Skwim.

Okay, but the post that you quote was sojourner's.

 

[kiwimac]

Indeed, I noticed that afterwards.

 

[Loviatar]

The world is not over populated and procreation is still necessary.

The "entire population could fit into Florida" argument misses the point: the argument is not about crowding. The argument is that the world is reaching population levels that are causing large resource strains, mainly water and fuel. Of course procreation is necessary for the continuation of human life, but not the current massive rate of population increase which has produced a population size several times what it was in biblical times.

Thankfully, population levels also tend to naturally go down with education rates, so some kind of China-style authoritarianism isn't necessary.

They are not both justifiable because only one of them can create life.

My sister is infertile due to a condition she was born with, basically her endocrine system goes out of wack if she forgets her medication (thankfully hasn't happened in years) and even when regulated her ability to carry a child is greatly impaired to the point of clinical infertility. Would her having sex be immoral then? Is it "defending death," as you claim? The church allows her to be married, after all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know? Were you there when it was written? Maybe they didn’t mean that at all. Maybe they meant men “spooning” with other men. Why would you automatically just go to anal penetration? It doesn’t say “anal penetration.” Did someone tell you it means “anal penetration?” Or do you just have a dirty mind? If someone told you that, why did you believe them? Are you a sheeple, just blindly following what someone else tells you? How do you know that’s what it means? Or are you just guessing? And if you’re just guessing, why would you want to call into question the morals of others, based on your dirty, guessing mind? I think you’re just rewriting the text to suit yourself, substituting “anal sex” for “spooning,” because you’re more comfortable with that concept.

Do you think that "God condemns men spooning together" is less morally repugnant than "God condemns men having anal sex with each other?"

 

[sojourner]

Indeed, I noticed that afterwards.

S’all good.

 

[sojourner]

Do you think that "God condemns men spooning together" is less morally repugnant than "God condemns men having anal sex with each other?"

I’m not commenting on God’s morality; I’m commenting on the folly of judging God as immoral, because of what some human beings wrote thousands of years ago. I’m commenting on the folly of those who have not bothered to exegete the texts thinking they stand on some higher intellectual ground, just because they read something in a book and leapt to conclusions that are understudied and overbaked.

When are you going to get it through your head that what you read in some biased translation is not “what God said?” When are you going to understand that the texts are neither modern in their approach, nor literal in much of their meaning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m not commenting on God’s morality; I’m commenting on the folly of judging God as immoral, because of what some human beings wrote thousands of years ago.

The only God I'm judging is the character(s) presented by the ancient authors of the Bible. Whether that character corresponds to anything outside the book is a separate question.

I’m commenting on the folly of those who have not bothered to exegete the texts thinking they stand on some higher intellectual ground, just because they read something in a book and leapt to conclusions that are understudied and overbaked.

And your suggestion that Leviticus condemns male-male snuggling is supposed to be honest exegesis?

When are you going to get it through your head that what you read in some biased translation is not “what God said?” When are you going to understand that the texts are neither modern in their approach, nor literal in much of their meaning?

I don't think "the Bible authors didn't really mean it" is honest exegesis, either.

But let's go with this for a moment: let's assume that you're right and that the author(s) of Leviticus weren't intending their writings to be taken as literal instructions from God; how do you think they intended them? They were trying to express some sort of meaning; what do you think it was?

 

[sojourner]

The only God I'm judging is the character(s) presented by the ancient authors of the Bible

Why would you want to judge a character that is the product of a different and ancient culture, based on one isolated facet that is completely culturally-derived? that seems... irresponsible.

And your suggestion that Leviticus condemns male-male snuggling is supposed to be honest exegesis

No, my suggestion is somewhat hyperbolic, in order to show how lacking your conclusions have been.

I don't think "the Bible authors didn't really mean it" is honest exegesis, either

I didn’t say “they didn’t mean it.” I said that what they said is easily misunderstood by a casual reading of the texts. I also said that the cultural mores in play are not cogent to our moral codes.

But let's go with this for a moment: let's assume that you're right and that the author(s) of Leviticus weren't intending their writings to be taken as literal instructions from God; how do you think they intended them? They were trying to express some sort of meaning; what do you think it was?

I didn’t say that they didn’t intend the writings to be instructions from God. But I’m so glad you asked! Indulge me, please:

I’m sure the writers did believe the instructions to be from God. But, we have to understand that the writers are neither infallible, nor were they working universally — that is, they were working within their own cultural understanding. The mistake that’s being made is to conflate their cultural understanding with some universal, “God-breathed” “rule” of morality.

The ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, as we have developed. They didn’t identify people as “straight” or “gay,” or “bi.” Therefore, when men had sex with men, they identified that as “unnatural” — even though modern science has changed that opinion. Of course, anything that was perceived to be “unnatural” would be seen as an “abomination” by them.

Additionally, in that culture, shame and honor were sexually-embedded. By that, I mean that, in that culture, men embodied honor; women embodied shame. That’s why the injunction in Leviticus is only for men, not women. Because it was assumed that the Law, defining honorable acts, would apply only to men. In that culture, women derived their honor through their husbands.
Therefore, for one man to “bend over and take it like a woman,” was for an honorable man to act as a woman, that is, shamefully. In addition to that, for a man to subdue an equal sexually was to act shamefully.

Another layer is the type of act that’s being discussed. it’s highly probable that the writers were thinking of Temple prostitution, usually carried out with young boys (in order to circumvent the “equal partner” problem. Boys were not equal to men).

In any case, what the writers are talking about is not the same kind of sexual relationship that committed, loving homosexuals enjoy in this time and culture. Therefore, the law does not apply to us. It would be like saying that “God didn’t intend women to hold property,” because it’s quite clear that, in that culture, women could not own property. And then arresting all women who own property. Times and cultures change. So have medical views on human sexuality.

The Bible writers also made provisions for slavery, yet no one’s taking that seriously now, either. Times and cultures change.

My point was that, until such factors are taken under consideration, it’s very, very easy to misinterpret the texts. A simple, surface reading of some biased translation does not give us the information we need in order to come to a reasonable interpretation.

 

[1robin]

Since I am not gay it does not have much to do with me, but it does have a lot to do with people that I know. And you clearly do not understand your claim because you do not understand how to calculate benefits. You can't do a cost benefit analysis without understanding the benefits.

I was given most of the benefits by a pro gay poster. However none of them made up for the millions of death and billions in medical bills. The only thing that can justify countless deaths is the creation of new life.

And yet you contradicted yourself by making one. You in effect said that you were wrong again.

How can you misunderstand all of my simple statements?

<sigh> It does not matter what you think is true.

Truth is all that does matter.

It is what you can show to be true. You are always very short on supplying evidence. I on the other hand will always supply evidence if asked politely and properly and sometimes even if I am not. And please, I am not the one spouting rhetoric. That would be you with your rather hate filled posts.

Until you deal with the evidence I supplied I am not justified in supplying more. You have yet to justify the 4% of us causing 60% of new aids cases.

Why do you hate gay people so much? Your hatred is obvious from your posts, I could even quote phrases of yours that support me. Like it or not sex is a fact of life. It is for much more than reproduction. You seem to realize that it can bring a married heterosexual couple together, don't you think it would have the same effect on two homosexual people?

I knew the virtue signaling and identity politics was not far off. I do not hate gay people. I am judging a behavior not a person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was given most of the benefits by a pro gay poster. However none of them made up for the millions of death and billions in medical bills. The only thing that can justify countless deaths is the creation of new life.

Tell me what are these benefits? How did you put a valuation on them? And we all die sooner or later so it appears you complaint should be that those people died too early (on that you would be right). But you still have no way of putting a proper evaluation on the pros. The sex alone "pays" for the medical bills if one looks at the cost of sex on the open market. And that would under value the sex.

How can you misunderstand all of my simple statements?

How could you not understand the you contradicted yourself?

Truth is all that does matter.

That may be, but your belief does not make anything true. Don't you believe the Flood myth?

Until you deal with the evidence I supplied I am not justified in supplying more. You have yet to justify the 4% of us causing 60% of new aids cases.

You did not properly provide evidence. You only provided statistics that you do not understand.

I knew the virtue signaling and identity politics was not far off. I do not hate gay people. I am judging a behavior not a person.

Sure you do, and there is no "virtue signaling and identity politics". Your putting a label on something that you do not understand is not an explanation, or as you would say "not an argument". And the behavior is part of the person. You cannot separate the two. This is a common problem with fundamentalists. It is why aversion therapy not only does not work, it is harmful to the people involved.

 

[1robin]

Most people in the world have agreed on all sorts of wrong ideas. That does not help you at all. This is another logical fallacy of yours. An argument ad populum is a rather desperate one.

I didn't say my view was right, I countered your statement by pointing out most people throw-out history have agreed with me.

And though you do not seem to understand it all of my posts have been at least as on topic as yours or even more so. Let's try to leave out personal attacks and see if you can discuss this without attacking others.

Not on topic. The reason sometimes I am not on topic is because I have to follow you down rabbit holes all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say my view was right, I countered your statement by pointing out most people throw<sic>-out history have agreed with me.

And I pointed out that that was a logical fallacy. Specifically an ad populum fallacy, also known as a bandwagon fallacy:


Your logical fallacy is bandwagon

There have been all sorts of things that were wrong that people believed in the past. That argument does not help you.

Not on topic. The reason sometimes I am not on topic is because I have to follow you down rabbit holes all the time.

Of course it is on topic. If you attack others that detracts from the argument. And no, you start the dive into the rabbit hole.