God And Homosexuality

[Left Coast]

I'm interested in science. I disagree with some conclusions where I see errors in reporting, methodology, etc. Many of the issues that concern born again Christians are metaphysical or intangible in nature. I don't live by everything psychiatric associations say--many of them recommend therapies now that are dangerous, non-biblical, even demonic.

Mkay. Again, your fundamentalism comes first. This is what I keep saying.

Here is some peer-reviewed research advocating against therapy for homosexuals:

For example, a homosexual male who enters reparative therapy
will be told that to be heterosexual, he will be required to do the following:
(see Nicolosi, 1991; Socarides, 1978): (1) participate in sports activities,
(2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such art
museums, opera, symphonies, (3) avoid women unless it is for romantic
contact, (4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to
learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting
with other heterosexual men, (5) Attend church and join a men’s
church group, (6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress,
or slips back into homosexuality, (7) become more assertive with
women through flirting and dating, (8) begin heterosexual dating, (9)
engage in heterosexual intercourse, (10) enter into heterosexual marriage,
and (11) father children.

I advocate only (5) and so do every other person I know who is a Christian in this type of ministry. Logically, this is fallacious reasoning on the part of the reviewers. I mean, some of these items are abhorrent, illogical, rude, anti-Christian.

Then you don't get out enough. I've heard of and seen most of these. Did you look up the references given as sources for the list?

Honestly, I've grown tired of walking you through the basics of critical thinking, scientific evidence, and the well-known consensus of medical and mental health professionals against your view of homosexuality. I thought you agreed with me multiple posts ago that this conversation's utility has ended.

I'm happy to provide you with more information about these subjects from an empirical, scientific perspective if I'm able. Other than than that, there's really nothing else for us to say to each other here.

 

[Mitty]

Where do you think orientation comes from? Genetic? You are denying nurture here as a cause. What is the natural cause?

What is the the reason for the sexual orientation of homosexual clergymen, and is that why they become clergymen?

 

[metis]

No one is saying that there are no genetic links to certain behaviors.

I firmly oppose the concept of people being "born a certain way" or that they are predetermined to act a certain way.

The above two statements are contradictory because we all are "born this way", namely what we genetically are. What we may or may not do with that is another matter.

Just as a person who is genetically predisposed toward alcoholism can avoid such an outcome by abstaining from alcohol - we can all of us avoid certain sexual sins by avoiding inappropriate sexual behaviors.

Agreed.

Besides - despite what you say - there is no conclusive evidence for the assumption that people are born to commit homosexual acts.

I didn't say they were, but the reality is that if people are genetically predisposed to have that attraction, then a theist should ask him/herself "Why did God make them this way?".

Again, we have to remember that all scriptures reflect the culture to a large extent whereas where and when they were written. This is not speculation as it's so obvious to any objective approach on this.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The above two statements are contradictory because we all are "born this way", namely what we genetically are.

I do not believe these statements to be contradictory at all.

I used the word "link" - which denotes a relationship or a correlation - not causation.

This relationship is often referred to as "weakness" or "natural man" in the scriptures - Paul even referred to it as a "thorn in the flesh".

We are all "born a certain way" - meaning that we exist as we are - as you said.

However - many people ("the world" as I would put it) interpret being "born a certain way" as a "predetermination to act a certain way".

I was trying to make that distinction clear.

What we may or may not do with that is another matter.

Exactly.

I didn't say they were, but the reality is that if people are genetically predisposed to have that attraction, then a theist should ask him/herself "Why did God make them this way?".

First - in response to your claim that "I didn't say they were" born to commit homosexual acts.

You originally said that there was a "genetic link with most homosexual tendencies" and that "other primates" committed "homosexuality acts"- but you then claimed that "thus some are born with that eventuality when reaching puberty" and that "God [made] homosexuals and then supposedly condemn[ed] them". (Bold and italics added)

What you said above led me to believe that you were promoting the idea that this "genetic link" caused that eventuality (homosexuality acts) because you claimed that God "made them that way".

That was my "take away" and - btw - God condemns homosexual behavior - not those who engage in them. Those who engage in them condemn themselves before the Law.

Now your question leads to the ultimate question, "Why did God make all of us imperfect mortals full of weakness when He Himself is perfect and immortal?"

The answer to that question touches all aspects of revealed truth but it boils down to three things;

1.) We need to experience weakness in order to gain an understanding of Good and Evil - and all opposing things.

2.) He gave us time and freedom (with a kind of anonymity) to prove to ourselves what we want to ultimately be in Eternity.

3.) Our weakness should cause us to be humble and to seek Him out and rely on His strength.

Again, we have to remember that all scriptures reflect the culture to a large extent whereas where and when they were written. This is not speculation as it's so obvious to any objective approach on this.

Sure - but universal and eternal truths remain unaffected.

A sin a thousand years ago will always be considered a sin. Even today.

God may allow us - as different cultures and peoples throughout time - to react differently to various sins - but they still remain sins.

The Law of Moses dictated that those who committed homosexual acts within Israel were to be put to death.

Since the Atoning Sacrifice of His Son God has not commanded any form of secular punishment be placed on any who commit this sin.

However - it is still a sin.

It's like a parent and a child. A parent may punish their child for telling a lie when the child is young - but as the child becomes an adult - it becomes unlikely that the parent would punish their adult child for lying.

Does this mean that there is nothing wrong with lying? That it is wrong for a child to lie but its okay for an adult?

Or - does the amount of knowledge and experience we possess alter how our "betters" treat us when we do wrong?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No one is saying that there are no genetic links to certain behaviors.

That does not mean that these certain behaviors cannot be sinful.

The scriptures refer to these behaviors influenced by the physical body as "weaknesses" or the condition of the "natural man".

I firmly oppose the concept of people being "born a certain way" or that they are predetermined to act a certain way.

Just as a person who is genetically predisposed toward alcoholism can avoid such an outcome by abstaining from alcohol - we can all of us avoid certain sexual sins by avoiding inappropriate sexual behaviors.

Besides - despite what you say - there is no conclusive evidence for the assumption that people are born to commit homosexual acts.

I've watched Robert Sapolsky's lectures in Behavioral Biology several times. What a genius!!!! It gives me a great appreciation to the many, many things, both biological, epigenetic, evolutionary, and environmental, that influence our behavior.

Sapolsky does not believe in free will, and his arguments are very compelling -- enough so to at least make me doubt free will. However, if we ever taught society that we had no free will, all havoc would break loose. One way or the other, we have to hold people responsible, as this then would be yet another environmental factor that determines our behavior.

 

[Mitty]

A sin a thousand years ago will always be considered a sin. Even today.
God may allow us - as different cultures and peoples throughout time - to react differently to various sins - but they still remain sins.

So why wasn't it a sin for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar?
And why wasn't it a sin for Abraham to kill his son as commanded?
And why wasn't it a sin for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel?

The Law of Moses dictated that those who committed homosexual acts within Israel were to be put to death.

But why doesn't the bible say anything at all about female homosexual acts?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting, so gays don't receive the right imprinting from mother/father? Any science on that?

Sorry, what?

You're the one saying that sexual orientation is the result of sexual imprinting. Which, if you think about it means that you think homosexuality is a learned behavior.

But sexual imprinting is actually the process by which animals learn the characteristics (i.e. behaviors, traits) of a desirable mate, by imprinting on their parents, guardians and other adults around them. This acts as a kind of signal that indicate which mates are more preferable than others. For instance, a man could be drawn more to women with blue eyes if his mother has blue eyes and she was his primary caregiver. A person born to older parents might be drawn to mates who are older. Male zebra finches seem to prefer mates with the same physical appearance as the female finch that reared them. Not too long ago I was talking with someone about how I thought Daniel Day Lewis was a good looking man. The person I was talking to pointed out that they thought he looked almost exactly like my father, at which point I noticed the same thing and just about tossed my cookies D). Then I noticed some of the other celebrities I'd thought were decent looking guys also looked a lot like my dad. That's what sexual imprinting is.

And you deny sexual imprinting ALSO has to do with fetishes, fantasies and preferences?

What's your angle here with the fetish thing? I don't understand.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a fetish? Are you saying people learn to be gay? Where are you going with this?

You continue to discuss what "faith and justice are" to this day. Did you know there's a book with the details.

We do still discuss faith and justice to this day. Our views on these are always being updated and revised.
Two hundred years ago it was "just" to own human beings as property in some parts of the world. We don't consider that "just" now, do we?

I can't turn to the Bible on this because there is no condemnation of slavery to be found in there and way too many parts telling me how to do it.

I don't plan to address the rest of your prior post. I merely wanted to point out your misuse of words, not that I want to argue semantics with you. But we should define terms:

Of course not. You rarely do address the point in these conversations.

Science handles tangible, materials things. It is the WORST possible tool to handle intangible, metaphysical things on its face (scientism) although we can use the scientific method to test tithing, prayer, etc.

Science is a tool we have used very successfully to investigate and explain what is going on around us. It's the most useful method we've got and it's the tool that has provided the knowledge we currently hold about everything we know about everything around us.

You say there are things that around us that are metaphysical and not detectable or measurable in any way. Which begs the question, then how do you know they are there? What are your reasons for believing they are there at all? And the thing is, if you can't show it to me or demonstrate it in any way at all, then I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what you are saying. The things you assert as fact then, cannot be stated as such. That's the problem.

I'd be happy, of course, to answer other questions from you, but this troubles me:

Justice is a concept that we invented. Free will is a concept that we theorize about. Faith is a concept. Trust is a word we defined and created.( As with love, trust can be demonstrated by certain behaviours.) We know they exist, because we created them. We continue to discuss what they mean to us to this day.

Shall I tell black friends "justice doesn't exist, not really, it's a contrivance"?

Shall I tell my spouse "don't trust me, like love, it's subjective and we define and create trust as we go"?

It troubles you that humans invented justice? Why? It's true. You can go back through hundreds and even thousands of years of human writing and literature to see how we actually hashed out the concept we now recognize as "justice." You can read through all the court cases that have occurred over the years and view how ideas about justice have changed over time and experience. You can see right before your eyes right now in the USA how ideas about justice are changing and developing over time.

I didn't say justice doesn't exist. I said it exists as a concept and that humans invented it. Do you have evidence otherwise? Because I have everything I just stated above.

I also pointed out not only in my last post but the last time we had this exact same conversation that love can be measured in the brain and also that love can be demonstrated by actions and words. Your spouse will most likely trust you, as long as you don't exhibit any behaviours that indicate to them that they should believe otherwise. For instance, if you keep staying out all night and taking phone calls in the bathroom versus coming home early and cooking dinner for your spouse and rubbing their feet. The former are grounds for suspicion about how much trust a spouse is deserving of, while the latter probably isn't. See?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But neither is Exodus International is not the subject of scientific, verifiable, peer review. The leader of the group was repressed and said some things that put his movement back some years, I get that, and I appreciate his singular, anecdotal claims and that you are using a double standard, one expert's anecdote to meet my own expert anecdote. I meet many repressed people in my travels. I've also known gays and lesbians for many years who've seen victory with the Lord.

My Lord is in the business of continual healing and miracles.

PS. How many ways can I express I'm quite interested in methodologically sound scientific analysis. Part of that includes statistical analysis. When I see something over and over and over again, a possibility is pareidolia, another is statistical significance! And to add to that--when I see many hundreds of Bible claims regarding human behavior and etc. over and over and over again--that is also highly significant.

This world has been broken and off-compass a long time. One of its latest myopias is the continuing "put your genitals there if it feels good" that has been going on since the 1960s worldwide and rooted in the fun-loving 1920s and so on. The Bible still is 100% true and verifiable/falsifiable IMHO.

Since you're so into statistics, it's odd that you haven't realized your glaring sampling errors.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I've watched Robert Sapolsky's lectures in Behavioral Biology several times. What a genius!!!! It gives me a great appreciation to the many, many things, both biological, epigenetic, evolutionary, and environmental, that influence our behavior.

Sapolsky does not believe in free will, and his arguments are very compelling -- enough so to at least make me doubt free will. However, if we ever taught society that we had no free will, all havoc would break loose. One way or the other, we have to hold people responsible, as this then would be yet another environmental factor that determines our behavior.

I would never be able to agree with anyone who claimed that there was no such thing as free will.

I believe that I fought in a literal war in Heaven to defend my free will.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

So why wasn't it a sin for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar?
And why wasn't it a sin for Abraham to kill his son as commanded?
And why wasn't it a sin for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel?

But why doesn't the bible say anything at all about female homosexual acts?

Why do you keep responding to my posts that are not directed at you and after I told you that I would no longer engage you?

You keep asking me the same questions that I have already answered multiple times.

You do not have to agree with my answers - but you do need to accept them as my answers.

Why do you keep asking the same questions while ignoring the fact that I have already answered them?

Asking me questions with no intention of listening to any of my answers is asinine and a waste of time.

I will not engage with you on this thread again. Accept that.

 

[Mitty]

Why do you keep responding to my posts that are not directed at you and after I told you that I would no longer engage you?

You keep asking me the same questions that I have already answered multiple times.

You do not have to agree with my answers - but you do need to accept them as my answers.

Why do you keep asking the same questions while ignoring the fact that I have already answered them?

Asking me questions with no intention of listening to any of my answers is asinine and a waste of time.

I will not engage with you on this thread again. Accept that.

In other words you can't tell us why the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality despite your false claims that it does?.

And why can't you tell us why the ten commandments etc did not apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, and why murder and adultery and incest weren't morally wrong for them until Mosaic Law, including the ten commandments, was written?

 

[sojourner]

A forum is a place where people can engage in open discussion. It is not an echo chamber where people go to listen to only those views that agree with their own.

Correct. But it is also a public space, where our hate speech needs to be tempered with our responsibility to care for others.

You are free to frequent those places - but you have no right to stifle me.

I do have the right to call out discriminatory speech.

This particular thread on this religious forum asked for people to share their opinion on what they believed God’s views on homosexuality were.

Yes it did, but the minute your posts crossed from "homosexuality is wrong for me according to my beliefs," into the "homosexuality is wrong for everyone according to my beliefs," that opinion crossed the line with you.

And you believe that only those views agreed by everyone should be shared here?

Nope. I'm saying that everyone's views are everyone's views, but that those views cannot be claimed as "cosmic truth" unless there's supporting scientific evidence.

I have yet to see any “scientific precedent” that contradicts the claim that homosexual behavior is sinful.

DSM IV.

Yes - I’m sure that they are very good at worshiping the golden calf they have erected - but that doesn’t really change anything.

Fallacy. Scientific determination isn't "worshiping mammon." It's scientific determination that disagrees with iron-age thinking.

Learning about the Universe and its Laws does not change how anything works.

No, but it does (or should) change our understanding about How Things Work. Think "the earth is flat" versus what we now know about the earth.

I believe that homosexual behavior was sinful before anyone knew anything about human sexuality and it will remain so forever.

What you believe is immaterial for the rest of us. If you don't wanna be homosexual, then by all means, don't be homosexual. But your belief is not binding upon the rest of us, and to claim that it is binding upon us is to engage in systemic violence.

Learning about gravity does not magically make us able to fly.

Believing that gravity does not exist does not magically make us able to fly.

Yes - that is my opinion - which I have every right to share - especially when I am asked to share it by the OP on a religious forum.

Yes you do -- until that opinion is voiced to include everyone.

Isn’t this rather hypocritical of you?

No. You can believe what you like. But your belief stops at the end of your own nose, until you have solid evidence to support your claim.

You judge me negatively for claiming that people should refrain from a particular behavior - yet you now admonish me and encourage me to refrain from a particular behavior.

Your claim is based on a personal belief and bias. My admonishment is based in an awareness of social dynamic. There's a difference.

Also - this argument is so shallow considering that if someone asked you about your views on homosexuality - you wouldn’t have any advice for those who disagree with you?

My advice is to acquaint yourself with cultural anthropology, biblical exegesis, and human psychology.

First off - could you quote exactly where I “foisted” anything on anyone?

Yes. You said: "I believe that homosexual behavior was sinful before anyone knew anything about human sexuality, and it will remain so forever." That's foisting an opinion on the rest of us. Why? Because it's at direct odds with prevailing medical wisdom.

Second - if you can provide such a quote - could you then explain how you attempting to tell me what to do in this post is any different?

When is it ever OK to foist an opinion on everyone?

Aren’t you - right now - trying to “foist” your values upon me?

Nope.

Lastly - if you don’t believe that your views should apply to everyone - then do you really believe in them?

My beliefs stop at the end of my nose. difference between you and me is that you believe your beliefs are "universal truth." I understand that my beliefs are how I choose to see and interpret the world around me.

You claim it has nothing to do with “authorities” - but then you list various authorities to support your position.

Disingenuous. You eschew the DSM as an authority. Now you're calling it an "authority." Which is it?

If you believe that we should all be bound by “agreed-upon usage” - then why do you not view the words “forum” and “foist” by their “agreed-upon” definitions?

I didn't do that.

To you - a forum is a place where only those who agree with you should speak.

Nope. That's what you're trying to claim about me. There's a difference between saying, "I believe this is right for me," and "I believe this is right for everyone." You're doing the latter, and I'm calling that out. In fact, I said that if you want to believe that homosexuality is sinful, then by all means don't engage in it yourself. My issue is that you're trying to say that no one should engage in it.

To you - an opinion that you do not agree with is an attempt to foist values upon you.

If you're trying to make those values apply to me, then you're foisting them upon me.

 

[sojourner]

Yet these sources consistently condemn homosexual behavior.

They consistently make a lot of claims that aren't supported by the evidence.

Yeah - but we believe that we have Apostles and Prophets alive today to interpret the scriptures accurately through revelation.

So do we.

Unless - of course - you are claiming to be an Apostle or Prophet - (i.e. an authority) - like you did in your previous post.

In my church, I have apostolic authority.

but constant bouts of apostasy have required Him to call Prophets throughout the history of Man to try and bring the people back in line with His Word.

Codswallop. That's a very convenient (and indefensible) excuse for "the bible and apostolic authority have no leg to stand on when we say so."

These Prophets - although accurate in their interpretation through revelation - were definitely those who engaged in “individual ventures” - because their messages were often rejected by the people.

Prophets weren't engaging in textual interpretation.

That very same thing could be said of “doctors, psychologists, and sociologists” and “Dictionaries, glossaries, medical journals” and any other “authority” you wish to reference.

So, if a doctor told you that "smoking will cause health problems for you" and you saw that there was nothing in the BoM referring to that, you'd call "BS" and smoke anyway?

I would argue that these authorities are heavily influenced by the political atmosphere and confirmation bias.

Your argument needs to be backed up by hard evidence.

Besides - none of this changes that the fact that the scriptures are consistent in their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

None of that changes the fact that the scriptural writers had a limited understanding of human sexuality, were neither medical nor social experts, and their opinions carry no weight in American law or social order.

That is not a claim of “infallibility” - just a claim of - “there is no pro-homosexual behavior message contained anywhere in the scriptures.”

There are also no "pro- computer" message in the scriptures, yet here you sit, blithely typing away, as if it means something. There are all kinds of things the texts don't mention. The texts are not an authority on human mental health.

These records span thousands of years and they remain consistent in this regard.

they thought the earth was the center of the universe for thousands of years too -- until they understood that it wasn't, and that the bible was speaking from a particular limited understanding of cosmic science. The same is true of homosexuality.

Yet - that is not what you are doing here.

Of course it's what I'm doing here. I understand that there's a difference between how these ancients understood human sexuality and how we understand human sexuality.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of presentism - denying that there could be any kind of verification - and dismissing it wholly.

Fine. If you want to go back to throwing virgins into volcanoes in order to appease the Corn Gods, go ahead -- just don't involve the rest of us.

Just excuses to ignore what you do not like.

No, just reasons to ignore what doesn't fit our scientific understanding of human sexuality.

You assume that you have the authority to declare what is or is not relevant to us anymore.

Well... an advanced education in the bible does tend to give one insight as to what the writings contain...

God hasn’t written anything Himself. He has given to Man the responsibility to write His Word.

And human beings are fallible; they write from their own culture and understanding. Humans are terrible filters.

You are essentially saying that all scripture should be dismissed since God Himself did not write it.

No, I'm saying that all scripture should be properly exegeted.

You are picking and choosing the parts of His Word that you like and ignoring that which you don’t.

No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what these ancients understood and had in mind, and how that can be relevant for us in our time.

It is true that God is compassionate, loving, kind, patient, merciful, forgiving and hospitable - but He is also a God of Law who has commanded that His children observe His statutes.

Oh, you must mean the law of "Love God; love neighbor as self."

God has consistently condemned homosexual behavior

No, human beings have consistently condemned homosexual behavior. Until recently.​

 

[metis]

What you said above led me to believe that you were promoting the idea that this "genetic link" caused that eventuality (homosexuality acts) because you claimed that God "made them that way".

The drive is largely genetic, according to the research, but how one may or may not carry that out into behavior is the person's choice-- not yours nor mine.

The answer to that question touches all aspects of revealed truth but it boils down to three things;

1.) We need to experience weakness in order to gain an understanding of Good and Evil - and all opposing things.

2.) He gave us time and freedom (with a kind of anonymity) to prove to ourselves what we want to ultimately be in Eternity.

3.) Our weakness should cause us to be humble and to seek Him out and rely on His strength.

The above are assumptions, whereas I'm working from scientific data.

Also, what you are continuing to ignore are the cultural influences that also gets reflected in scriptures. How much is one versus the other is impossible to determine because the degree of "Divine inspiration", if any, is impossible to determine.

A sin a thousand years ago will always be considered a sin. Even today.

That's only if one views the scriptures as being 100% Divinely inspired and 100% inerrant, which I don't.

 

[sojourner]

All I am saying is that no amount of study is going to change the all-pervading laws of the Universe.

A religious belief is not an "all-pervading law of the universe." It's a personal belief. Unless, of course, the universe revolves around you...

Only those who ignore the bulk of His Word would assume this.

Only those who don't bother to exegete the texts would state this.

Now you’re a time-travelling mind-reader!

I've studied the cultural anthropology of the time.

He knew that God directed him - through revelation - to say what he said and that it was true.

He filtered it through his own understanding -- just as we all do.

No amount of “understanding” is going to change God’s Law.

No amount of faith is going to make ancient, human beliefs into Cosmic Truth.

The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat or that menstruation was caused by “evil spirits”.

It certainly does teach that the earth is flat. If you bothered to exegete the texts, you'd know that.

Again - you are taking God completely out of the equation.

Incorrect. I'm taking the human "belief filter" out of the equation.

You assume that God could not have caused these things to be written.

You assume that God could have caused these things to be written.

You have every right to believe that - but I remain unconvinced.

That's your problem. Don't make it everyone else's too.

That’s good considering that it was never meant to be any such thing.

But you're holding it up over and against the prevailing medical wisdom, and claiming that the prevailing medical wisdom is "confirmation bias."

Again - this is very hypocritical of you to tell me that I cannot share my opinion about what others should or should not do while you are free to do so.

I'm not doing that. I'm merely stating that individual beliefs don't provide a basis for medical determination or public policy.

Also - when did I “condemn” anyone?

You said that homosexuality was sinful. That condemns everyone who identifies as homosexual.

So - as I said - you do believe yourself to be an authority to interpret God’s Word - whilst not believing that God Himself said anything that is contained in the scriptures.

Correct. And I stand by it. I'm not a biblical literalist.

If biblical writers were too affected by their “knowledge base” and ”cultural perspective” to be credible witnesses - then you are just as unreliable.

True. As are the rest of us. We are all products of our own time. Perhaps someday, our current knowledge will be disproven by people in the future. But we can only work with what we have. The ancients condemned homosexual acts because they didn't understand the nature of homosexuality. We have a better understanding. This is also why we don't use Thalidamide anymore. Or Asbestos.

No one is credible according to your argument. Even you.

Not so. it does acknowledge where credibility is limited.

God-sanctioned polygamous marriages are recorded in the scriptures and do not contradict God’s Laws - while homosexual behavior does.

I don't think you have any idea what "biblical polygamous marriage" consisted of.

And how far does yours extend?

To the end of my nose.

You are essentially asking me what I would do if God turned out to be a liar?

I'm essentially asking you what you would do if your belief of what ancient texts say is wrong.

If it was not illegal in the US at the time the Church practiced it - wherein lies your argument?

Homosexual marriage is not illegal in the United States.

And yes - if some Being of light were to make such a claim I would instantly be suspicious of it - since it contradicts God’s Law

So, the texts are immutably incorrupt and the only real source of religious authority. Got it.

Homosexual behavior is sinful and God would never endorse a homosexual union - because it violates His Law and it damns the eternal potential of His children.

According to your belief. The rest of us don't share that belief. Since the belief is not universal, and doesn't reflect a universal truism, it can only be true for you. It is not true for the rest of us. My issue with you is when you try to make it be universal for everyone.

I do not make any judgments about any “molds”

See above.

It is God who has made known to Man that there were made male and female and that neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in Him.

It is people who have "made this known."

You are basically trying to shoot the messenger here.

You're trying to pass the messenger off as someone else.

I never claimed that anyone was flawed, inferior or not entirely human.

When you say that an expression of love that is only available to certain ones, but not others, based upon an arbitrary criterion, you are claiming that the criterion that mitigates the expression is "flawed."

You see - you and others like you are the ones who claim that people are “born a certain way” - while I do not teach or believe that.

You don't get to make that determination for the rest of us.

I believe that we - all of us - are capable of overcoming all of our sins and weaknesses and becoming perfect one day.

Immaterial.

I treat each individual sin the same.

Immaterial.

If any is “dehumanizing” anyone - it’s you - because you are claiming that we are all born to particular “molds” that we can never break free from - which has not been my experience with humanity and it hurts your own argument about you being superior to ancient peoples.

Immaterial.

I have never claimed that black people were “less” than anyone else.

Immaterial.

I was merely trying to establish common ground by mentioning a behavior that we both would agree was bad or sinful.

Immaterial.

A man who desires to watch birds - yet never does - is not a bird watcher.

A woman who desires to bake - yet never does - is not a baker.

So... anyone who desires to have same-sex relations but does not isn't … homosexual?? So I guess that anyone who desires to have heterosexual relations but doesn't isn't … heterosexual?

What about people who don't desire to be white, but are white? Are they not white? This is just bad science.

BTW - any “human sexuality” performed outside the bounds the Lord has set - is sinful.

Homosexual marriage is within the bounds the Lord has set.

You believe that people are “born a certain way”.

I do not believe that.

Too bad for you.

My message is one of hope while yours is stifling and oppressive.

Your message appears to be that your bad science should determine who is fully human or not. Seems rather oppressive to me...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since you're so into statistics, it's odd that you haven't realized your glaring sampling errors.

I tell homosexuals I encounter "imprinting and/or distant same sex relationship" and they all say, "Yes!" except for a few people who always argue with everything I ever say at RF.

Sample = 100%

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, what?

You're the one saying that sexual orientation is the result of sexual imprinting. Which, if you think about it means that you think homosexuality is a learned behavior.

But sexual imprinting is actually the process by which animals learn the characteristics (i.e. behaviors, traits) of a desirable mate, by imprinting on their parents, guardians and other adults around them. This acts as a kind of signal that indicate which mates are more preferable than others. For instance, a man could be drawn more to women with blue eyes if his mother has blue eyes and she was his primary caregiver. A person born to older parents might be drawn to mates who are older. Male zebra finches seem to prefer mates with the same physical appearance as the female finch that reared them. Not too long ago I was talking with someone about how I thought Daniel Day Lewis was a good looking man. The person I was talking to pointed out that they thought he looked almost exactly like my father, at which point I noticed the same thing and just about tossed my cookies D). Then I noticed some of the other celebrities I'd thought were decent looking guys also looked a lot like my dad. That's what sexual imprinting is.




What's your angle here with the fetish thing? I don't understand.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a fetish? Are you saying people learn to be gay? Where are you going with this?

We do still discuss faith and justice to this day. Our views on these are always being updated and revised.
Two hundred years ago it was "just" to own human beings as property in some parts of the world. We don't consider that "just" now, do we?

I can't turn to the Bible on this because there is no condemnation of slavery to be found in there and way too many parts telling me how to do it.


Of course not. You rarely do address the point in these conversations.

Science is a tool we have used very successfully to investigate and explain what is going on around us. It's the most useful method we've got and it's the tool that has provided the knowledge we currently hold about everything we know about everything around us.

You say there are things that around us that are metaphysical and not detectable or measurable in any way. Which begs the question, then how do you know they are there? What are your reasons for believing they are there at all? And the thing is, if you can't show it to me or demonstrate it in any way at all, then I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what you are saying. The things you assert as fact then, cannot be stated as such. That's the problem.

It troubles you that humans invented justice? Why? It's true. You can go back through hundreds and even thousands of years of human writing and literature to see how we actually hashed out the concept we now recognize as "justice." You can read through all the court cases that have occurred over the years and view how ideas about justice have changed over time and experience. You can see right before your eyes right now in the USA how ideas about justice are changing and developing over time.

I didn't say justice doesn't exist. I said it exists as a concept and that humans invented it. Do you have evidence otherwise? Because I have everything I just stated above.

I also pointed out not only in my last post but the last time we had this exact same conversation that love can be measured in the brain and also that love can be demonstrated by actions and words. Your spouse will most likely trust you, as long as you don't exhibit any behaviours that indicate to them that they should believe otherwise. For instance, if you keep staying out all night and taking phone calls in the bathroom versus coming home early and cooking dinner for your spouse and rubbing their feet. The former are grounds for suspicion about how much trust a spouse is deserving of, while the latter probably isn't. See?

So you are saying homosexuality is a product of imprinting? Of genetics? What?

My point re: fetishes is that fetishes are clearly, obviously in most cases from early experiences/imprinting. If you like, homosexuality is a fetish. It is not proven to be genetic except for one Bible exception.

We can use a science mindset (hypothesis method, sampling, controls) to determine what metaphysical things exist.

I can see justice concepts evolving over time, while the justice detailed in the Bible remains the basis/the best measurement for when correct justice has been meted out and for accompanying justice with that vital quality, righteousness.

Yes, love is measurable by actions and words. It is arguably the premier thing that humans seek, yet science is woefully unable to explain attachment, love, consciousness, even existence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Mkay. Again, your fundamentalism comes first. This is what I keep saying.



Then you don't get out enough. I've heard of and seen most of these. Did you look up the references given as sources for the list?

Honestly, I've grown tired of walking you through the basics of critical thinking, scientific evidence, and the well-known consensus of medical and mental health professionals against your view of homosexuality. I thought you agreed with me multiple posts ago that this conversation's utility has ended.

I'm happy to provide you with more information about these subjects from an empirical, scientific perspective if I'm able. Other than than that, there's really nothing else for us to say to each other here.

If those 11 are what Exodus I. did to torture homosexuals, I'm glad they were destroyed. I repudiate 10 of them, as I've said. Try to not debate people based on "all you people are alike"!

Real change IMHO comes from the power of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Victory comes not from self-denial or hypocritical role play--just as the Bible says--but comes from forgiveness of past abusers, power-forgiveness from Jesus Christ, healing of past wounds, and affirmation and love from real born again, blood bought souls.

I question if you're happy as a homosexual, or know what happiness is, based on my relationship with the living, risen King. Just being frank. Jesus gives the strength of eagles bearing us upon their mighty wings--you are "tired" of "telling me how science and mental health professionals think and come to consensus." I know how academics think, I work for a university and have lived in a university town for 30 years. What has the potential to tire me is the self-destructive moral erosion being done by "proven research and consensus".

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is the the reason for the sexual orientation of homosexual clergymen, and is that why they become clergymen?

Offhand, I would say the numbers are with those sects that forbid marriage to clergymen, which is an unbiblical practice.

Humans are fallen and degenerate psychologically and spiritually--myself included. IMHO, Jesus is the answer.

 

[Left Coast]

I question if you're happy as a homosexual, or know what happiness is, based on my relationship with the living, risen King.

There are so many different ways that I'm tempted to verbally tear you a new one for saying something this condescending, self-centered, and homophobic. But honestly? You're not worth the energy.

Have a nice day.