God and his hatred of homosexuality

[Thana]

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.

Love is not sex and sex is not love. The two are seperate and do not require each other.

They are denied nothing. You choose to do what you believe pleases God, If you do not wish to please God then no one forces you. And you know we all have our own burdens to bear.

As a Christian I know that I am a sinner, A sinner always but that doesn't mean I can just keep on sinning. I have to change, to be better, to grow and to sacrifice if I want to get closer to God and to understand more about Him and His will. If you're too full of yourself, If you're too committed to sinning, You'll never find a close relationship with God. If that is not something you want then fine, That's your choice but if it is something you want then you have to do it.

If you think you can live as everyone else does and still attain righteousness, Then that's your prerogative but the bible I read reminds me that we are not meant to be like everyone else. We're meant to be set apart.

 

[gsa]

Love is not sex and sex is not love. The two are seperate and do not require each other.

They are denied nothing. You choose to do what you believe pleases God, If you do not wish to please God then no one forces you. And you know we all have our own burdens to bear.

As a Christian I know that I am a sinner, A sinner always but that doesn't mean I can just keep on sinning. I have to change, to be better, to grow and to sacrifice if I want to get closer to God and to understand more about Him and His will. If you're too full of yourself, If you're too committed to sinning, You'll never find a close relationship with God. If that is not something you want then fine, That's your choice but if it is something you want then you have to do it.

If you think you can live as everyone else does and still attain righteousness, Then that's your prerogative but the bible I read reminds me that we are not meant to be like everyone else. We're meant to be set apart.

Ah yes, those who continue in their sexual sins are "too full of" themselves and "too committed to sinning" to enjoy a close relationship with God, while those who know that they are a sinner and repent of their sins, growing and sacrificing (but not, in the case of heterosexuals, sacrificing their sexuality and their chance at romantic fulfillment and happiness) to get close to God, well, they can do that.

Is being passive aggressive and haughty another requirement for attaining Christian righteousness, or is that just a plus?

 

[sojourner]

They are denied nothing.

They are denied everything. Human beings are, first and foremost, bodies. We sense the world around us through physical means. We express love through physical means.

If you're too full of yourself, If you're too committed to sinning, You'll never find a close relationship with God.

How can homosexuals be "too full of themselves" when their communities, families, and spiritual leaders deny them who they are?!
Theirs is a fight to be recognized as fully human -- not to deny a "too full" humanity.

we are not meant to be like everyone else. We're meant to be set apart.

But not dehumanized.

 

[Thana]

They are denied everything. Human beings are, first and foremost, bodies. We sense the world around us through physical means. We express love through physical means.

How can homosexuals be "too full of themselves" when their communities, families, and spiritual leaders deny them who they are?!
Theirs is a fight to be recognized as fully human -- not to deny a "too full" humanity.

But not dehumanized.

For heaven's sake.
If you do not want too do it, You don't have too! If you do not want a closer relationship with God then you don't have too!

It's up to the person, It's their choice if they want to not have homosexual sex. If they do, fine. But if they choose not too then who are you to tell them they're not doing the right thing?

 

[Thana]

Ah yes, those who continue in their sexual sins are "too full of" themselves and "too committed to sinning" to enjoy a close relationship with God, while those who know that they are a sinner and repent of their sins, growing and sacrificing (but not, in the case of heterosexuals, sacrificing their sexuality and their chance at romantic fulfillment and happiness) to get close to God, well, they can do that.

Is being passive aggressive and haughty another requirement for attaining Christian righteousness, or is that just a plus?

Yes because, There's no expectations on heterosexuals. It's not like we're asked not to commit adultery or polygamy or pre-marital sex and even told that it's better to never marry.
Goodness me, It's like you're trying to make it sound like all the burden is on homosexuals. The rest of us have to give up our own fleshly desires aswell, But it's a choice not a requirement and isn't meant to be forced on anyone. We do it because we want to.

You're the one looking down your nose at me, then you accuse me of being haughty.

 

[gsa]

Yes because, There's no expectations on heterosexuals. It's not like we're asked not to commit adultery or polygamy or pre-marital sex and even told that it's better to never marry.
Goodness me, It's like you're trying to make it sound like all the burden is on homosexuals. The rest of us have to give up our own fleshly desires aswell, But it's a choice not a requirement and isn't meant to be forced on anyone. We do it because we want to.

You're the one looking down your nose at me, then you accuse me of being haughty.

Presumably, if Christianity accommodated homosexual monogamy, the same expectations would apply to homosexuals: No adultery, no pre-marital sex, and it is better never to marry. But given that the restriction applicable to homosexuals forecloses any kind of meaningful sexual or romantic relationship, their burden is far greater than the one imposed on heterosexuals, who still have an avenue for sating their sexual appetites in marriage.

Your arrogance shows in the way you discard people who disagree as full of themselves and committed to sinning, so much that they foreclose a relationship with their creator.

 

[sojourner]

For heaven's sake.
If you do not want too do it, You don't have too! If you do not want a closer relationship with God then you don't have too!

It's up to the person, It's their choice if they want to not have homosexual sex. If they do, fine. But if they choose not too then who are you to tell them they're not doing the right thing?

You're choosing to not get what I'm saying. Just as a heterosexual can choose to have heterosexual sex and become closer to God, so can a homosexual have homosexual sex and become closer to God. By setting it up as an either/or, you're appropriating their full access to God and full access to their humanity. Stop. It.!

 

[sojourner]

Yes because, There's no expectations on heterosexuals. It's not like we're asked not to commit adultery or polygamy or pre-marital sex and even told that it's better to never marry.
Goodness me, It's like you're trying to make it sound like all the burden is on homosexuals. The rest of us have to give up our own fleshly desires aswell, But it's a choice not a requirement and isn't meant to be forced on anyone. We do it because we want to.

You're the one looking down your nose at me, then you accuse me of being haughty.

There's a vast difference between sexual dissipation and sexual expression of love. All homosexual sex isn't just dissipation. And you can't deny them their opportunity to express love fully.

 

[gsa]

As an aside, I'm not a Christian and I think that the doctrines are mostly nonsensical and immoral. I don't believe premarital sex or homosexuality is immoral, and I think Christianity is a false religion. Speaking as an ex-Christian, though, and as someone who is unfortunately stuck in the last gasp of our soon-to-be post-Christian society, I am reasonably familiar with Christian attitudes on a number of subjects. And unfortunately for those of us who are not subscribers, the internal debates within the Christian religion have consequences that ripple beyond it, giving us a stake in the outcome.

 

[sojourner]

As an aside, I'm not a Christian and I think that the doctrines are mostly nonsensical and immoral. I don't believe premarital sex or homosexuality is immoral, and I think Christianity is a false religion. Speaking as an ex-Christian, though, and as someone who is unfortunately stuck in the last gasp of our soon-to-be post-Christian society, I am reasonably familiar with Christian attitudes on a number of subjects. And unfortunately for those of us who are not subscribers, the internal debates within the Christian religion have consequences that ripple beyond it, giving us a stake in the outcome.

I don't think it's a false religion, but I do think that many adherents have falsified it.

 

[Thana]

There's a vast difference between sexual dissipation and sexual expression of love. All homosexual sex isn't just dissipation. And you can't deny them their opportunity to express love fully.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I've said multiple times that it's a choice and only a choice to a believer, To a non-believer it's essentially a non-issue.

You're choosing to not get what I'm saying. Just as a heterosexual can choose to have heterosexual sex and become closer to God, so can a homosexual have homosexual sex and become closer to God. By setting it up as an either/or, you're appropriating their full access to God and full access to their humanity. Stop. It.!

This is just my understanding of it, Clearly you have a different understanding and that's fine.
I don't preach or condemn or discriminate or hate so I don't know why you think I'm imposing anything on anyone.

 

[Thana]

Presumably, if Christianity accommodated homosexual monogamy, the same expectations would apply to homosexuals: No adultery, no pre-marital sex, and it is better never to marry. But given that the restriction applicable to homosexuals forecloses any kind of meaningful sexual or romantic relationship, their burden is far greater than the one imposed on heterosexuals, who still have an avenue for sating their sexual appetites in marriage.

Your arrogance shows in the way you discard people who disagree as full of themselves and committed to sinning, so much that they foreclose a relationship with their creator.

According to you. The measurement of burdens and their effects is relative.

I never said what you're saying, You're projecting your idea of me and I don't appreciate it. We are all sinners, There's no denying that but people who disagree with me are probably right. I'm not an experienced worldly Christian and I fully admit I don't know everything and could be wrong about things. I'm just expressing my understanding of how God see's homosexuality, I could be wrong but I don't judge other people or think they have to agree with me. My ideology is for myself alone, I don't wish it upon others.

I keep saying it's a choice, for believers and only if they want it.
And I am not condemning or judging those who choose not too.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not denying anyone anything. I've said multiple times that it's a choice and only a choice to a believer,

Yes, you are. You're denying full humanity in God to homosexual believers.

I don't preach or condemn or discriminate or hate so I don't know why you think I'm imposing anything on anyone.

Dehumanization of this sort (where the religious culture condemns either the homosexual orientation or the homosexual act) constitutes systemic violence. The tactics used in such condemnation is basically no different than in the systemic violence perpetrated upon American slaves of the 19th century and German Jews of the 20th. If you don't oppose the violence, you are complicit in it. And if you're complicit in it, you're helping to impose it by remaining tacit.

 

[Thana]

Yes, you are. You're denying full humanity in God to homosexual believers.

Dehumanization of this sort (where the religious culture condemns either the homosexual orientation or the homosexual act) constitutes systemic violence. The tactics used in such condemnation is basically no different than in the systemic violence perpetrated upon American slaves of the 19th century and German Jews of the 20th. If you don't oppose the violence, you are complicit in it. And if you're complicit in it, you're helping to impose it by remaining tacit.

I'm not dehumanizing anyone. It's a choice and either choice doesn't change how I feel about them or that they deserve the same respect and love and rights as anyone else. And I believe God sees us all the same, No sin is greater. He looks at our hearts and that is all.

I'm not sure why you're comparing me to those who felt slaves were okay but I assure you I do not think anything of the sort.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not dehumanizing anyone. It's a choice and either choice doesn't change how I feel about them or that they deserve the same respect and love and rights as anyone else. And I believe God sees us all the same, No sin is greater. He looks at our hearts and that is all.

I'm not sure why you're comparing me to those who felt slaves were okay but I assure you I do not think anything of the sort.

But it's not a real choice. You're not giving homosexual believers the choice to practice and not be "in sin." You're not giving them the same choice you're giving heterosexual believers. The reason is ostensibly because there's something "wrong" with homosexuals expressing themselves sexually. But sexual expression is part of self-identity. So, by extension, what you're saying is that there's something "wrong" with who these people are. They can never express who they are and be on good footing with God. They have to hide their identity. IOW, what you've effectively done is to "call them out," just like the Nazis called out Jews -- made them "different." And just like we did with black slaves in this country -- called out their fundamental difference from white people. You're calling out the fundamental difference of homosexuals from heterosexuals and punishing that difference by not allowing them to be on good footing with God. That's dehumanization.

You see, you're calling their self-expression "sinful." "God sees us all the same, no sin is greater." But what you're really saying is that, while heterosexuals' self-expression isn't sinful, homosexuals' self-expression is. You're creating a false difference, much as the differences touted by white supremacists about blacks is false, and much as the differences between Jews and Gentiles touted by the Nazis was false. It isn't just a difference of skin color, religion, or sexual identity. It's a difference of acceptability. And that's dehumanizing.

Healthy homosexual expression isn't any more sinful than healthy heterosexual expression. Because the only real difference between the two is the identity of the practitioners. And identity isn't "wrong" or sinful.

 

[Thana]

But it's not a real choice. You're not giving homosexual believers the choice to practice and not be "in sin." You're not giving them the same choice you're giving heterosexual believers. The reason is ostensibly because there's something "wrong" with homosexuals expressing themselves sexually. But sexual expression is part of self-identity. So, by extension, what you're saying is that there's something "wrong" with who these people are. They can never express who they are and be on good footing with God. They have to hide their identity. IOW, what you've effectively done is to "call them out," just like the Nazis called out Jews -- made them "different." And just like we did with black slaves in this country -- called out their fundamental difference from white people. You're calling out the fundamental difference of homosexuals from heterosexuals and punishing that difference by not allowing them to be on good footing with God. That's dehumanization.

You see, you're calling their self-expression "sinful." "God sees us all the same, no sin is greater." But what you're really saying is that, while heterosexuals' self-expression isn't sinful, homosexuals' self-expression is. You're creating a false difference, much as the differences touted by white supremacists about blacks is false, and much as the differences between Jews and Gentiles touted by the Nazis was false. It isn't just a difference of skin color, religion, or sexual identity. It's a difference of acceptability. And that's dehumanizing.

Healthy homosexual expression isn't any more sinful than healthy heterosexual expression. Because the only real difference between the two is the identity of the practitioners. And identity isn't "wrong" or sinful.

Nazi's now? Slaves and Nazi's is what your comparing my ideology with?

I disagree with everything you've said, But I don't know what more to say to convince you that I'm not imposing or denying or forcing anything on homosexuals. If they want to express themselves sexually I'm not stopping them, And if they disagree with homosexual sex being a sin then I accept that too. They can do as they like, And I can believe as I like. Besides, What I believe only applies to myself, What they believe is between them and God and I won't judge.

 

[Knight of Albion]

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."

Men putting words in God's mouth, not God's words. A big difference.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree with everything you've said

Of course you do! No one ever agrees that they're complicit in systemic violence. I'd have expected nothing less. But the thing about systemic violence is that it's insidious. It generally flies under the radar of those who are favored by the system (in this case, Christian heterosexuals). Let's look at just three of the tactics common to both the Nazis and slavers and see if we can draw comparisons between the plight of German Jews, blacks and today's homosexual populations:

1) Deprivation of physical comforts/necessities
Jews and blacks were both deprived of food, medicines and various creature comforts. Homosexuals are deprived of the emotional comforts and benefits of marriage that everyone else enjoys.

2) painful and permanent separation from family groups
Homosexuals are often shunned by both family and church circles, many permanently. Many have to move out of state in order to have marriage recognized.

3) Denial of full participation in society
Homosexuals cannot participate (again) in marriage. In many places, they are discriminated against by businesses and landlords. In my own city, an initiative to add homosexuals to the list of groups protected by local anti-discrimination laws was recently overturned by the Christian majority.

Imagine, now, that the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine that you are unable to marry the guy you love. Imagine that your family disowned you because you loved a guy, and your church told you that you weren't a real Christian because you loved a guy. Imagine going into a photographer's studio to have a couple's portrait done, and were turned away, because the photographer didn't serve "your kind of sinner." And there was no legal recourse, because your community cared more about who you loved than it did about protecting you.

These things are never, ever "apply only to myself" or yourself. When you remain tacit as these things are happening, you are complicit in the systemic violence, just as the German population and German church who didn't speak out were complicit in the Holocaust. Just as American Northern whites who didn't keep slaves were complicit in slavery by remaining tacit. If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the problem.

"What they believe" is between them and God, but it's also between them and you, who constitute the rest of society. Same goes for what you believe. No one exists in a vacuum. What you do or don't do affects others. When you choose to believe that homosexuals are sinful, it affects them. Why? Because you're in the majority. You have the voice; you have the power.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're not giving homosexual believers the choice to practice and not be "in sin." You're not giving them the same choice you're giving heterosexual believers.

Yes, it's all very confusing.

 

[Skwim]

Men putting words in God's mouth, not God's words. A big difference.

Are you saying that god didn't say any of these things? If not, then what did god say, and how do you tell the difference? My suspicion is that it's god speaking if what he says coincides with your particular theology (needs): theological cherry picking as it were.