God and his hatred of homosexuality

[Rick O'Shez]

So, according to your definition of "lust" there is not action needed (see definition provided from dictionary.com), but it is still sinful? I just don't think that could be the case.

I don't know, I was trying to get in the mind of a Biblical theist and failing as usual.
But I see your point, I don't know whether a lustful state of mind would be considered sinful, or just the action which results.

In any case I still have no idea why gay sex is a "sin" in the eyes of some theists.

 

[Thana]

So... you're guessing that "God has a legitimate reason." IOW, when you do a literalistic reading of Leviticus & etc. and find that "homosexuality is frowned upon," that's OK, but when the bible doesn't clarify a reason, it's simply OK to infer that there "must be one?"

It only applies to believers? So non-believing homosexuals are OK?

This is tantamount to, "but Gee, Mr. Banker! I can't be overdrawn! I still have some checks left!"

Not guessing, I know He has a reason.
I already mentioned why the people of Israel needed these laws.

And yes, It only applies to believers.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry, I did not realize we were allowed to redefine words to fit our arguments, but good to know.

You can do whatever you like within the limits of the rules, but if you decide to use your own definitions don't be surprised if people jump on you for doing it or ignore you altogether.

Nevertheless, according to your definitions, it is a logical impossibility for bisexuality to occur in a committed relationship between two people.

I suppose it depends on how committed it is.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that would necessitate a third person.

As for being bisexual, there would have to be more than one object of one's attraction---both of which would be of different genders---either at the same time or at different times.

As a side note on posting, we all find it easier to read the reply to a post if that reply follows the quoted post.

BTW, welcome to RF.

 

[Thana]

Yup, and why I was very careful when I indicated what god hates: Homosexuality not homosexuals.

Then you're addressing a whole other issue. The subject is why god hates homosexuality not that he hates lust. Lust is the reason why he hates homosexuality, which is why I took the time to point out

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

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

Neither do I, which I was careful to make the distinction. Yet you keep bringing it up.

Right, Forgive that misunderstanding.
I still reason that it's not homosexuality itself but lust, Because one cannot help being homosexual whereas one can control their lust.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because one cannot help being homosexual whereas one can control their lust.

And that presumably also applies to heterosexuals?

 

[Thana]

And that presumably also applies to heterosexuals?

Of course.

 

[sojourner]

Not guessing, I know He has a reason.
I already mentioned why the people of Israel needed these laws.

And yes, It only applies to believers.

How do you know?

So, it's OK for nonbelievers to be homosexual, but not believers? What is your reasoning for this? (This should be good!)

 

[Thana]

How do you know?

So, it's OK for nonbelievers to be homosexual, but not believers? What is your reasoning for this? (This should be good!)

Why would they follow the commandments of a religion created by a God they don't even believe exists? And why would I expect them too?

 

[sojourner]

Why would they follow the commandments of a religion created by a God they don't even believe exists? And why would I expect them too?

Then we're back to the first question, aren't we? What is the "good reason" for believers to not be homosexual, if it's OK for everyone else?

 

[Thana]

Then we're back to the first question, aren't we? What is the "good reason" for believers to not be homosexual, if it's OK for everyone else?

I never said they can't be homosexual, Homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexual sex however, is a choice. And the good reason is that if they are believers than they believe the bible asks them not too, That should be enough. If it is not then nobody is forcing them, But if they want a closer relationship with God they have to sacrifice their flesh desires, As do we all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But if they want a closer relationship with God they have to sacrifice their flesh desires,

So if somebody is gay and wants to be a Christian, they have to be celibate?

 

[sojourner]

I never said they can't be homosexual, Homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexual sex however, is a choice. And the good reason is that if they are believers than they believe the bible asks them not too, That should be enough. If it is not then nobody is forcing them, But if they want a closer relationship with God they have to sacrifice their flesh desires, As do we all.

1) You're splitting hairs. It's OK for nonbelievers to express their love in a way that's natural for them, but it's not OK for believers to express their love in a way that's natural for them? So, essentially, God created believers to love certain people and then *forbids* them to love??? A) Love is God's nature, and, according to Genesis, we are created to be with one another in love, B) We are all created in God's image as human beings, C) to be denied that nature of loving dehumanizes, so believers are forced by God to be less than God created them to be.

2) "Because the bible says so" wasn't good enough for Jesus; it shouldn't be "good enough" for us, either. Jesus weighed scripture against human need all the time. "It is written -- but I tell you..." Plus, Christians have been doing that ever since we decided to not keep the Mosaic Law. The ban on homosexual acts is part of Mosaic Law. We eat shellfish, we wear 50/50 cotton/poly shirts, we neglect to stone prostitutes, we do not practice levirate marriage & etc., but we can't be allowed natural love??? Not buying it.

I don't believe for one teeny second that we need to "sacrifice our human desires" in order to "have a closer relationship" with God. If we are to have a closer relationship with God, we need to learn to live into the fullness of our humanity in which God created us, God made us with the desire for healthy love. We should embrace that.

 

[sojourner]

So if somebody is gay and wants to be a Christian, they have to be celibate?

Which is fine for you to say, if you're "blessed" enough to not be gay, I suppose... I have to wonder what she'd say if the shoe were on the other foot, and heterosexual love were forbidden by the bible?

 

[leibowde84]

Right, Forgive that misunderstanding.
I still reason that it's not homosexuality itself but lust, Because one cannot help being homosexual whereas one can control their lust.

Wait, lust is simply an extremely strong sexual attraction to someone. There is no action involved, even according to the Biblical definition of the word. So, how does one change their strong sexual attraction to someone else? I need clarification as to how one could control their sexual desires if not acted upon.

 

[gsa]

I never said they can't be homosexual, Homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexual sex however, is a choice. And the good reason is that if they are believers than they believe the bible asks them not too, That should be enough. If it is not then nobody is forcing them, But if they want a closer relationship with God they have to sacrifice their flesh desires, As do we all.

How do you deal with the implications of Matthew 5:27-28, which equates desire with the action, in terms of sinfulness, in addressing adultery? It is clear that the Greek term for "lust" (epithumeo) is also used to describe desire, and that in the Christian framework it is completely reasonable to conclude that prohibited desires are equivalent to prohibited actions. This would make any homosexual orientation a grievous sin, because the desire to sin is equivalent to the action of sinning itself, and all people with a homosexual orientation experience sexual desires for the same sex.

Clearly, plenty of Christians disagree with the argument that orientation and behavior are distinct, and that the former is morally neutral. Even the Catholic Church, the desire becomes sinful if it leads to sexual fantasies, since one "chooses" to engage in sexual fantasy formulation, I suppose.

To me, of course, it is just further proof that this religion is ridiculous.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which is fine for you to say, if you're "blessed" enough to not be gay, I suppose... I have to wonder what she'd say if the shoe were on the other foot, and heterosexual love were forbidden by the bible?

Yes, that was my point really. The more I hear the more confused I am as to the rationale for gay sex being a sin.
As they say where I live "It's a load of old b*llocks"

 

[sojourner]

How do you deal with the implications of Matthew 5:27-28, which equates desire with the action, in terms of sinfulness, in addressing adultery? It is clear that the Greek term for "lust" (epithumeo) is also used to describe desire, and that in the Christian framework it is completely reasonable to conclude that prohibited desires are equivalent to prohibited actions. This would make any homosexual orientation a grievous sin, because the desire to sin is equivalent to the action of sinning itself, and all people with a homosexual orientation experience sexual desires for the same sex.

Clearly, plenty of Christians disagree with the argument that orientation and behavior are distinct, and that the former is morally neutral. Even the Catholic Church, the desire becomes sinful if it leads to sexual fantasies, since one "chooses" to engage in sexual fantasy formulation, I suppose.

To me, of course, it is just further proof that this religion is ridiculous.

The religion isn't ridiculous, but some of the theological constructions are real twisted.

 

[gsa]

The religion isn't ridiculous, but some of the theological constructions are real twisted.

The only non-ridiculous variants, at least to me, are minorities. Quakers and Unitarians and extremely liberal branches within the major denominations (usually liberalism that is inconsistent with the actual creeds embraced by those denominations). The majority position is farcical.

 

[sojourner]

The only non-ridiculous variants, at least to me, are minorities.

Yeah but that's true of almost anything.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Quakers

I practice with Quakers from time to time.