God and his hatred of homosexuality

[sojourner]

Oh definitely. It became very clear during news interviews that religious objection was mostly thinly-disguised homophobia.

Which is......



Evil? <places pinky by corner of mouth>

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[sojourner]

Oh, that's funny! Is it a Photoshop job? Bet it is!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Is it a Photoshop job?

Doctor Evil is well connected.....

 

[sojourner]

Any gay activity is grounds for immediate execution.

Provocative and inflammatory generalization.


The consideration given to this statement is surpassed only by that preceding such statements as, "I didn't think it was loaded," or Elzabeth Taylor saying "I do."

 

[sojourner]

God is fake. The Bible is fake. Jesus is fake. Therefore there is no hatred of homosexuality. This is just a delusion. Get back to reality!

God is fake. The Bible is fake. Jesus is fake. Therefore there is no hatred of homosexuality. This is just a delusion. Get back to reality!

Provocative and inflammatory generalization.


The consideration given to this statement is surpassed only by that preceding such statements as, "I didn't think it was loaded," or Elzabeth Taylor saying "I do."

 

[gsa]

I don't see a verse approving of what Lot did. It records what he did, and the angels blind the men before they could do anything. Lot was declared righteous but it did not make him perfect, he valued the hospitality of his household over his daughters which was wrong.

There is absolutely no indication that what Lot did was wrong, and he was deemed righteous, in the Christian scriptures no less, long after offering them up as sacrificial lambs. Similarly, there is absolutely no indication that the Levite who sacrificed his concubine to a similar mob in Judges was regarded as immoral for doing so; quite the contrary. Even the Taliban is morally advanced compared to these thugs.

Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 regarding divorce - "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
The same principle can be applied to God's allowance of polygamy in the Old Testament, another marriage-related issue.

So polygamy is not immoral. I mean, you do not get to have it both ways; you do not get to declare an unchanging character that reveals perfect justification for violent homophobia on the one hand, and gloss over clear inconsistencies with the "one man one woman" view. Either your god allows polygamy for all times, changed the law and deemed polygamy immoral because he changed his mind, or never allowed polygamy (plainly false).

All are one, equal I didn't say "gender has no meaning", I affirm Paul's other teachings on men and women.

Yes, perhaps at death and following resurrection, but so what? Masters still rule over their slave property, and men still rule over their wife property. Paul says nothing to contradict this.

Men are the head of the family, there is a headship role, but I see no reason to construe this as property, you are adding to the text where there is no explicit mention of such.

No, you are simply ripping the bible from its context. Virginity had economic value because women were property; there was no equivalent compensation scheme for stealing the virginity of a male, nor any gender-neutral command not to covet a neighbor's husband. In Christianity, women's status is even justified as a result of Eve's action: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."(I Timothy 2:11-14). Of course Paul almost certainly is not the author, but evangelicals can't dispute it and, in any event, his statement that women were made for the glory of men and denies that women are made imago dei, in 1 Corinthians 11:3-9. Modern Christians deny this implication, of course, but it is clear that Paul has a low view of women, at least in their earthly incarnation.

Do I also have to establish that Jesus rose from the dead, and that God exists? From a Christian worldview the reasoning for why God disapproves of homosexual activity is clear. And the Levitical Law is not a model for how human governments should work today but rather the holiness of God and how the wages of sin is death, for by the Law we know what sin is, and its severity.

No, because the resurrection, while key to supporting the Christian religion, is unnecessary to explain the violent homophobia of the religion. As you indicate, that comes from the bible's misogyny and general contempt for humanism. But there is absolutely no indication that Levitical law is not a model for how governments should work; for over a thousand years it was applied in Christendom, and homosexuals were hunted down and executed by Catholics and Protestants alike.

The Bible neither condones nor condemns it.

By default then, not sinful. Presumably, your god would not leave you without instructions on this topic if it was a sin.

Thanks for the label and the assumption that you know everything I believe.

It isn't hard to identify evangelicals and fundamentalists when they assert sola scriptura, complementarity and other strong indicators of Protestant extremism. Was I wrong?

The whole "spilling the seed" verse can be construed as a condemnation of acts with no chance of reproduction, though I can't say for sure.

It could be construed that way, but it would be a stretch. Believe it or not, I do think that there are correct and incorrect interpretations, based on the historical understanding of the authors. It is clear that Leviticus 15:16-17 contemplates the emission of semen both with and without reproductive potential, and it only results in ritual impurity. Onan's transgression was clearly his unwillingness to fulfill his duties by impregnating his brother's widow.

Our bodies are also temples of the Holy Spirit, I don't see it as particularly beneficial in that regard, given the health risks.

Says nothing about scriptural condemnation or any transgression of divine law for anal sex. So who cares?

On the off-chance it is permissible, one would recourse to God's intention of marriage between a man and a woman, it is simply how God intended it to be.

On the off chance? There's no indication that it is impermissible. In any event, why would God intend to allow anal sex between married men and women but not between men? Or oral sex for that matter? Keeping in mind that you do not have the recourse to reproductive requirements.

Look at the world around you, it's full of death and war and human greed and selfishness. It makes sense that this world isn't right, and that's not God's fault but ours. God's love was manifested most brilliantly when He died for us on the cross, one can ask for no more than that.

When you believe that the world was initially a paradise, as recorded in the Genesis myth, it can be difficult to understand why reality doesn't live up to your unrealistic expectations. Death and avarice and greed predate humanity; tribal feuds, the micro version of warfare, also probably predates humanity. The Christian mythos was completely dethroned by the theory of evolution by natural selection and the discovery of deep time, which simply renders both the Genesis narrative and Original Sin as unbelievable.

The only thing that Christianity has going for it, compared to its Abrahamic cousins, is adherents and aesthetics (personal perspective as someone who is culturally Christian). The story, which is absurd, cannot be reconciled with everything we know about history, nature and human behavior. It isn't even properly monotheistic and is in fact considered idolatrous by most of its near cousins, although most Jews and Muslims are usually too polite to point this out. We might have rational arguments for belief in god(s), but Christianity, at least the traditional version that you subscribe to, is the least sensible of the world's major religions.

 

[sojourner]

"I'll hold Rush Limbaugh hostage for... One million dollars!..." (No one but Phil Robertson would attempt to pay it)

 

[sojourner]

Sultan of Swing said:
"Lot was declared righteous but it did not make him perfect, he valued the hospitality of his household over his daughters which was wrong."

Not according to hospitality laws then in effect. The visitor always took precedence over the family -- especially male visitors over female family members.

 

[gsa]

Sultan of Swing said:
"Lot was declared righteous but it did not make him perfect, he valued the hospitality of his household over his daughters which was wrong."

Not according to hospitality laws then in effect. The visitor always took precedence over the family -- especially male visitors over female family members.

This will inevitably invite the predictable response that what you are saying is not found within the plain language of scripture, therefore there is no "biblical" support for the proposition and so it cannot be true! Just another lie of liberal historical criticism being imposed on the inerrant Word!

Yet notice how careful this Sultan is to avoid the clear double standards found within the bible, including in the beloved "moral law" that remains in effect. In Deut. 22:14-21, for example, there is a clear penalty (stoning) for a woman who, after being married to a man, is revealed not to be a virgin. There is no corresponding rule for men of course. And if the man falsely accuses the woman, is he subject to stoning? No; he is indebted and must remain married and be chastised for his false accusation. Meanwhile, if a man lies with a betrothed damsel, he is subject to stoning (along with the damsel, unless she was raped). And what happens if a man lies with a virgin who is not promised to another? Fifty shekels, and he must marry her.

This is the best version of sexual morality that Sultan's god could produce. How can conservative Christians possibly expect us to take them seriously when they hold up this abomination as the inspired and inerrant "Word of God"?

 

[sojourner]

This will inevitably invite the predictable response that what you are saying is not found within the plain language of scripture, therefore there is no "biblical" support for the proposition and so it cannot be true! Just another lie of liberal historical criticism being imposed on the inerrant Word!

Yet notice how careful this Sultan is to avoid the clear double standards found within the bible, including in the beloved "moral law" that remains in effect. In Deut. 22:14-21, for example, there is a clear penalty (stoning) for a woman who, after being married to a man, is revealed not to be a virgin. There is no corresponding rule for men of course. And if the man falsely accuses the woman, is he subject to stoning? No; he is indebted and must remain married and be chastised for his false accusation. Meanwhile, if a man lies with a betrothed damsel, he is subject to stoning (along with the damsel, unless she was raped). And what happens if a man lies with a virgin who is not promised to another? Fifty shekels, and he must marry her.

This is the best version of sexual morality that Sultan's god could produce. How can conservative Christians possibly expect us to take them seriously when they hold up this abomination as the inspired and inerrant "Word of God"?

Too much tap-dancing and fact-twisting going on for me to ever be fundamentalist.

 

[Skwim]

I touch my pee-pee all the time when I use the bathroom

That's very nice, I guess, but my point involved "acts of touching pee-pees"

 

[Skwim]

His problem is lust, And like money and arrogance and hatred, It can be a powerful influence and can control and ruin people's lives and become a form of idolatry.

So, unlike heterosexuals who just lust from time to time, homosexuals do it all the time. Yeah sure.

 

[Skwim]

Hate and God in the same sentence? Misrepresentation...

Psalm 5:5 - "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."

Hosea 9:15 - "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters."

Proverbs 6:16-19 - "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Zechariah 11:8 - "Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me."

Malachi 1:3 - "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

 

[Skwim]

I think the point of the OP was to question the apparent focus of the modern version of Christianity on how people get it on - which subsequently implies that God is way too concerned with what are essentially personal and private matters.

Actually, my point is quite simple; to try to figure out why, exactly, god hates homosexuality.

 

[Skwim]

Wow this is a powerful post. Let me see.

The reason why homosexuals are hated in the Bible, is because the Bible describes a homosexual by his or her actions; we (homosexuals) are defined by what we do rather than who we are.

I can't remember reading such a thing (post a piece of scripture to this effect if you would) rather just a hatred of homosexuality: homosexual activity.

 

[nazz]

That's very nice, I guess, but my point involved "acts of touching pee-pees"

Oh, I only have one. Sorry

 

[Skwim]

Any gay activity is grounds for immediate execution.

Welcome to RF, troll.

 

[Thana]

So, unlike heterosexuals who just lust from time to time, homosexuals do it all the time. Yeah sure.

Lol.
I never said that and I didn't imply it either.
Why did you jump to this conclusion?

 

[Skwim]

Lol.
I never said that and I didn't imply it either.
Why did you jump to this conclusion?

Because it is so obvious. Here's my rational, in detail:

The setup:

Thana: "His problem is lust, And like money and arrogance and hatred, It can be a powerful influence and can control and ruin people's lives and become a form of idolatry."

• Without any logical alternative, "His" obviously refers to god.

• The quandary as I outlined it is why god hates homosexuality.

• Your answer to this quandary is god's "problem" with lust.

The reasoning, spelled out.

Now, heterosexuals lust from time to time but evidently not enough to incur god's wrath. Even if there was only one heterosexual in the world who never lusted, would it be fair for god to include this person in his condemnation of all other lusting heterosexuals by declaring that heterosexuality is an abomination and that any who practiced it should be put to death? Of course not. Not if you're going to be a fair and just god. Instead, god would simply condemn lust, just a he has.

Therefore, for a fair and just god to condemn a behavior, that behavior must always include some condemnable element. In this case the element is lust. Therefore, because god does, in fact, condemn homosexuality because of lust, all homosexuals must lust. There is no exculpatory exception such as the single heterosexual mentioned above that would stop god from condemning heterosexuality.
​

Please note that I never went through this reasoning process, but immediately recognized it for what it is. Hence my jumping to my conclusion.

​