Fear of homosexuality

[Audie]

That's very nice.

1) If both adults agree, it's consent. Consent is legal, and it's moral, given the other criteria I mentioned.
2a) There is no "end," when God is eternal.
2b) There is no "Lake of Fire," unless you're talking about Lake Eerie from about 50 years ago. And I don't think God's going to dump anyone there.

IDK why you're blowing fantasy up our pants here. And I can't figure out what hate, disdain, or fear you must harbor to literally believe and defend these fantasies that 1) God hates part of God's creation so much that God would do that, and 2) that you simply can't live and let live, where others sex lives are concerned. It must keep you up nights -- no pun intended.

You know how it is with them's as protest too much.

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense. And your pro Sodom and Gomorrah theology is an absolute joke.

IDK why you think I'm "pro Sodom and Gomorrah?" 1) Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. The bible says so (unless you want to not believe the bible). 2) The type of sex act in that story is rape. 2b) I'm not "pro rape." 3) "Sodom and Gormorrah theology is a theology that condemns treating the vulnerable with violence. So, I guess you think that the bible is ridiculous where mistreatment of the vulnerable is concerned?

That's very nice.

Let the hate and judgment go! You'll feel better!

 

[Skreeper]

Adultery is between two consenting adults, and that's immoral as well as illicit gay sex hook ups.

Since you're unable to give a coherent argument on why gay sex/relationships is immoral I think we can safely ignore your worthless opinion on the matter.

 

[sojourner]

Adultery is between two consenting adults, and that's immoral as well as illicit gay sex hook ups.

Not really, since one or both of the parties is married. For consent, you'd have to get the spouse(s) to consent, too.
What about licit gay sex hookups?

 

[sojourner]

In Islam the act of sodomy his haram (prohibited). Not even a husband and wife can engage in it, so this is why gay men are severely frowned upon. Of course people collate the act with the person therefore wrongly consider all gays as sodomites. The point is, its the act that should be hated, not the individual, but people dont think about it that deeply.

Why should the act be "hated?" What do you care what people do behind closed doors?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not really. As with Jesus, who had to correct interpretations of the real truth that was outlined very clearly, it is simply man who takes truth and creates their own versions of pseudo-truth - a sad fact but clearly outlined in the Bible on how men have that capacity.

We see the truth of love, but then see men change love into pedophilia and create the organization NAMBLA to declare that it is real love and should be accepted as such.

So it is man that changes truth and not the Bible being an unreliable source.

Sorry, but that's just special pleading. Read a text on mathematics, or logic. Or maybe Euclid's Elements. You can't "misinterpret" the Pythagorean Theorem to mean anything other than what it says. No cubes, only squares. Only works in right triangles, etc., etc. That's called "rigour."

Just think, for a moment, about the great schism of the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches in 1054 CE. It basically divided the entire Christian world into 2 parts that have never reconciled...over interpretation! Where's the rigour in that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This (long) quote is from the Exodus Global Alliance — a group that (mistakenly) believes reparative therapy is legit, even though psychological science has proven otherwise and condemns the practice as harmful.

Nice try, though.

I wonder if either you or he noticed that the word koite is translated as both "the marriage bed" and "sexuality immorality." That would seem a bit odd, wouldn't it?

 

[sojourner]

I wonder if either you or he noticed that the word koite is translated as both "the marriage bed" and "sexuality immorality." That would seem a bit odd, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. That’s why context matters. Many times context is necessary in order to understand the meaning of the word as it’s being used. In this context, there’s no reason it should be translated “homosexual,” especially since the concept didn’t exist then.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Everyone is a little bit gay, or could be in the right circumstances. That's where the fear comes from. There's also a large dose of predujice, judging people who are different.
Sadly some religious institutions buy into this bigoted nonsense.

I'm not really sure that's true. I know for certain that I'm not even a little bit straight, though still quite masculine. I've known quite a few men in my life that my wishful thinking would dearly have loved to be "a little bit gay" for just a while, but alas...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Too obvious, you'd think, to need mentioning.
I see though that this is most vigorously denied
by certain persons here.
I think Shakespeare had a line to describe this.

Actually, a lot of people suppose that Shakespeare might have been "a little bit gay." I actually think this is not so, based upon his own words I one of his sonnets. This sonnet was written to a presumed partron, a handsome young man who is pretty patently homosexual, and as a wealthy lord, was Shakespeare patron for some time, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Here's the sonnet:

A woman’s face with nature’s own hand painted,
Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion;
A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion:
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue all ‘hues’ in his controlling,
Which steals men’s eyes and women’s souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created;
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick’d thee out for women’s pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love’s use their treasure.

Notice the last four lines: "by addition" means that nature added the "prick" 2 lines further, and thus, "defeated" the kind of love that Wriothesley might have liked, but Shakespeare could not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not necessarily. That’s why context matters. Many times context is necessary in order to understand the meaning of the word as it’s being used. In this context, there’s no reason it should be translated “homosexual,” especially since the concept didn’t exist then.

Um, where did I suggest that translation? I didn't say "homosexual," I said "marriage bed" and "sexual immorality." You cannot possibly answer my points by simply changing what I say to something else, and answering that instead.

 

[sojourner]

Um, where did I suggest that translation? I didn't say "homosexual," I said "marriage bed" and "sexual immorality." You cannot possibly answer my points by simply changing what I say to something else, and answering that instead.

Because that’s the translation originally in question in this particular thread. The other poster suggests that the translation is “homosexual.” The NRSV translates the term as “male prostitute,” in reference to temple prostitution so prevalent in that culture. There really is no simple cross-translation for the term. That’s why I said context is important.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but that's just special pleading. Read a text on mathematics, or logic. Or maybe Euclid's Elements. You can't "misinterpret" the Pythagorean Theorem to mean anything other than what it says. No cubes, only squares. Only works in right triangles, etc., etc. That's called "rigour."

Just think, for a moment, about the great schism of the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches in 1054 CE. It basically divided the entire Christian world into 2 parts that have never reconciled...over interpretation! Where's the rigour in that?

No, that's human nature. Read up on Psychology. And you can't use math (that is exact) with concepts as an example.

• Personalities and politics: Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope St. Leo IX weren’t friends, and each one mistrusted the other. Cerularius crossed the line when he wrote in a letter that the Latin use of unleavened bread was Jewish but not Christian. He was denying the validity of the Holy Eucharist in the Western Church. Leo countered by saying that the patriarchs had always been puppets of the Byzantine emperors.
  
  Notice the psychological issues (personalities)
  
  Bible remains faithful... people aren't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because that’s the translation originally in question in this particular thread. The other poster suggests that the translation is “homosexual.” The NRSV translates the term as “male prostitute,” in reference to temple prostitution so prevalent in that culture. There really is no simple cross-translation for the term. That’s why I said context is important.

But Paul used the word "arsenokoites,", not koites. It basically means "man - bed" which is kind of dull, really. (I've been in bed with men. It doesn't amount to much except snoring unless they're getting it on.)

But of course, though everybody ignores it (for obvious reasons), the "thorn" in Paul's side is very likely that he himself had a taste for members of his own sex. Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong posits as much, and makes a pretty good case.

Would it not be too funny, in the context of this thread, that a repressed homosexual is responsible for most of Christian belief today. Imagine!

 

[sojourner]

But Paul used the word "arsenokoites,", not koites. It basically means "man - bed" which is kind of dull, really. (I've been in bed with men. It doesn't amount to much except snoring unless they're getting it on.)

But of course, though everybody ignores it (for obvious reasons), the "thorn" in Paul's side is very likely that he himself had a taste for members of his own sex. Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong posits as much, and makes a pretty good case.

Would it not be too funny, in the context of this thread, that a repressed homosexual is responsible for most of Christian belief today. Imagine!

Well, for Paul, given his context, I’m sure that any same-sex contact was considered taboo, so these are all most likely blanket statements. That being said, sexual orientation is a recognized thing in this day and culture, so Paul’s condemnation of same-sex relationships simply does not — indeed cannot — refer to loving, committed, same-sex relationships by those who, today, identify as homosexual.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Adultery is between two consenting adults, and that's immoral as well as illicit gay sex hook ups.

What about their hook ups make them illicit?

There's going to be a whole load of 'consenting adults' who have violated God's moral laws who will be cast into the Lake of Fire at the end.

Likely not, because there are many, such as Christians, who will find themselves before Anubis, where their heart will be weighed against the Feather of Ma'at, and having possessed a heart heavy of guilt many of them will be condemned and devoured by Ammut.

No, that's human nature. Read up on Psychology. And you can't use math (that is exact) with concepts as an example.

That's just it though. Mathematics is objective and always the same. Religion is purely subjective, with Christianity alone having hundreds, if not thousands, of schisms because of differing interpretations of the Bible. If Jehovah objectively exists and is objectively god, why is his book and instructions not more objectively clear and more universally understood?

 

[Spartan]

Since you're unable to give a coherent argument on why gay sex/relationships is immoral I think we can safely ignore your worthless opinion on the matter.

Just go ahead and kick the Bible to the curb and see what that gets you.

 

[Kenny]

That's just it though. Mathematics is objective and always the same. Religion is purely subjective, with Christianity alone having hundreds, if not thousands, of schisms because of differing interpretations of the Bible. If Jehovah objectively exists and is objectively god, why is his book and instructions not more objectively clear and more universally understood?

Not because it isn't clear but, as Jesus taught, traditions of men get inserted no matter how clearly it was written.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just go ahead and kick the Bible to the curb and see what that gets you.

I did that when I was 16. I'm still recovering and healing from the emotional scarring the Bible and Church left me with, but life has gotten so much better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not because it isn't clear but, as Jesus taught, traditions of men get inserted no matter how clearly it was written.

The contradictions and inconsistencies alone prove the Bible really isn't clear. Nor does it make it clear as to why there are such inconsistencies and contradictions between Judaism and the Christian interpretations of the OT. Such as, it isn't clear as to how Satan went from a loyal and obedient agent of god in Judaism to the eternal enemy of god in Christianity.