God And Homosexuality

[Mitty]

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.

Is that why Jesus asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12) and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

So instead, you chose a passive-aggressive response. Is that a good response to my being honest?

If you're sure of your stance, you should be sure of the free interchange of ideas. I'm not a homophobe who physically assaults gays instead of talking to them, I'm a person who is being honest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is that why Jesus asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12) and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife?

You asked regarding unmarried clergy. Do you have a comment regarding my response?

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]

So instead, you chose a passive-aggressive response. Is that a good response to my being honest?

Telling you that the conversation is a waste of my time and energy is not passive aggressive. It's quite direct.

If you're sure of your stance, you should be sure of the free interchange of ideas.

I've been freely exchanging ideas with you for pages upon pages of this thread. You have accused me of being dishonest about my own life, have peddled completely unsubstantiated homophobic pseudoscience, and have now claimed I don't know what happiness is, simply by virtue of my gayness. Why would I waste more of my time on someone who so thoroughly disrespects me?

I'm not a homophobe who physically assaults gays instead of talking to them, I'm a person who is being honest.

You don't have to physically attack gay people to be a homophobe, any more than you have to physically attack people of another race to be racist. Please educate yourself.

I'm now truly done replying to you here.

 

[Mitty]

You asked regarding unmarried clergy. Do you have a comment regarding my response?

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.

Have you ever actually discussed the reason for their sexual orientation with any homosexual clergymen such as Nigel Wright who I went to school with, and whose gayness was obvious even before puberty, and whose father and grandfather were also Anglican clergymen? And is that why he sought Jesus for the answer, given that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality nor why he loved one of his disciples instead of a wife too?
Or do you just prefer to be offhand or do you prefer to be offside or to just put your head in the sand?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/cause-still-has-long-way-to-go-says-gay-priest-20111128-1o38f.html

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have you ever actually discussed the reason for their sexual orientation with any homosexual clergymen such as Nigel Wright who I went to school with, and whose gayness was obvious even before puberty, and whose father and grandfather were also Anglican clergymen? And is that why he sought Jesus for the answer, given that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality nor why he loved one of his disciples instead of a wife too?
Or do you just prefer to be offhand or do you prefer to be offside or to just put your head in the sand?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/cause-still-has-long-way-to-go-says-gay-priest-20111128-1o38f.html

Why would the gospel writer report Jesus "loved" him--so he could be stoned to death?

Why did David command all Israel sing the song about his "love" for Jonathan, so he could be stoned to death?

If Nigel Wright tells me he was born gay or else chose to be gay late in life, what does that have to do with trying to suppress desires while serving as a third generation clergymen?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Telling you that the conversation is a waste of my time and energy is not passive aggressive. It's quite direct.



I've been freely exchanging ideas with you for pages upon pages of this thread. You have accused me of being dishonest about my own life, have peddled completely unsubstantiated homophobic pseudoscience, and have now claimed I don't know what happiness is, simply by virtue of my gayness. Why would I waste more of my time on someone who so thoroughly disrespects me?



You don't have to physically attack gay people to be a homophobe, any more than you have to physically attack people of another race to be racist. Please educate yourself.

I'm now truly done replying to you here.

I apologize to you for offending you. I meant neither disrespect nor insensitivity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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%

If you say that to them, you are misrepresenting what sexual imprinting is. You still haven't entirely explained what you mean by that anyway, so I'm a bit confused as to what your theory is.

Your sample size was cherry picked by you. That's not a true representation of the population. I've seen you ignore people on this board who claim differently than you do, so they're not included in your sample. Also, your sample size is undefined.

I'm curious though, you must say more to them than just that. So when they enthusiastically agree with you, as you say, what is it that you are claiming they are saying, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

No, I'm not saying that.

I am asking if you are.

I was just explaining to you about how you've misunderstood what sexual imprinting is.

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.

Okay, I guess I am asking what the heck fetishes have to do with homosexuality.

So you're saying that homosexuality is a fetish. You run into a problem there because homosexuality is not a fetish.

But I still don't know what you are saying. Are you claiming that gay people had a gay sexual experience when they were younger and so they became gay? Are you saying that witnessing gay parents performing sex acts makes a person gay? Are you saying that having a distant relationship with a parent of the opposite sex makes a person become gay? What are you saying? And what does this have to do with sexual imprinting?

I don't know what the Bible has to do with genetics.

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

Great. So how do we use a "science mindset" to actually demonstrate them?

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.

Sorry but I find the "justice" in the Bible to be abhorrent much of the time. Thankfully, we've come a long way since those days. Good thing human beings have taken the time to consider this stuff.

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.

Look up oxytocin.

Science has much to say about existence. For instance, in demonstrating whether things exist or not. I'm still not sure how we are supposed to figure out whether souls exist or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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".

What does that mean?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

It is if He doesn't condemn it.

The Bible specifically records God condemning rape and He even likens it to murder. (Deuteronomy 22:25-26)

So there is no need for God to come out of the clouds and condemn it every time it happens.

Polygamy was often sanctioned by God in the scriptures.

I can think of no reason to consider polygamy immoral.

We need to remember that God Himself did not write the Bible or any other book of scripture - men wrote them.

Yes - many of these books claim to be works of revelation - but God cannot force men to write anything and He certainly cannot have everything be written.

There are not enough books in the world to contain all the things that God has done for Man.

Just don’t assume that God approves of everything that the scriptures claim that men did.

Research how old girls were when forced to marry adult men.

Judging ancient people and their customs by our current standards is a bias or fallacy called presentism and should be avoided if you want to remain objective.

Considering their average life-span - and how involved both of the families were in the whole marriage process - I consider it quite a stretch to claim that these young women were “forced” into these marriages and that the consummation of said marriage should be considered “rape”.

I understand that we today consider anyone below the age of eighteen to be a minor and therefore unable to give consent - but we cannot use that very new standard against people who lived millenia ago.

Maybe, but it's what happens in the story.

It was not your recounting of events that was immature - but your implication that Adam had sex with animals.

Not only was it immature - but it was a comment made in ignorance of what the Genesis account actually records.

The first chapter of Genesis records the formation of Adam and Eve in the very same verse (Genesis 1:27).

The second chapter of Genesis goes into a little more detail claiming that God formed Adam before Eve - gave him instructions - then wanted to provide Adam with a “help meet” because it was “not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

However - after God had formed all of the animals and Adam named them - the record claims that “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20).

This proves that God never intended for any of the animals to be Adam’s “help meet” - because all of the animals had been formed and named and none of them were designated as such.

Finally - the Genesis account does not record Adam having sex at all until after he and Eve were cast out of the Garden (Genesis 4:1).

For realz, though, the likely explanation is that after Yahweh had been divorced by His followers from His Wife Asherah, the author writes of man being made of the image of God.

You have every right to believe whatever you wish - but I hope you are not making the claim that the Bible supports these beliefs - because it does not.

The Bible does not claim that YHWH had a wife or consort and it gives no reason to assume that He did not have every intention of making Man in His image.

Since God by that time wasn't allowed to have a wife anymore, Eve wasn't considered necessary until the plot hole became obvious.

Well - as I said earlier - the first mention of the formation of Adam and Eve took place in the first chapter and in the very same verse,

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27)

If there was no “gap” between the mention of both Adam and Eve - wherein lies your “plot hole”?

If the “author” of the Bible was a man - then the fifteen verses in between Adam’s formation and Eve’s in chapter two of Genesis was no “plot hole” - because the first chapter had already clearly stated that God had formed both a man and a woman.

Those fifteen verses in between Adam’s formation and Eve’s records events specific to Adam - such as God teaching him how to tend the Garden and having him name all of the animals.

Basically - God was preparing both a worthy and capable husband and a home for Eve to inherit before she had been formed.

God made a man out of dirt. Did He lose the recipe? If God can make humans out of dirt (just as the NT says God can make children of Abraham out of rocks), why was a female even necessary? Why does it have to be Adam's twin sister Adora (I mean, Eve)?

Again - you are free to believe whatever you want - but don’t try to claim that the Bible teaches that Eve was Adam’s twin sister or that her name was actually Adora - because it does not.

Why did God make Eve for Adam?

The Genesis account clearly teaches that and I have already shared some of that with you.

First - as I told you previously - because it was “not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

Second - because God wanted Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

God wanted Adam and Eve to create children of their own and to gain dominion over the Earth that He had formed for them.

God is not in the business of handing everything to us. He wants us to work and thereby grow in our experience and capacity.

Finally - I believe that the reason is because He loves us and He wants us to take after Him and be happy. We cannot accomplish that on our own.

Well, that took maybe a few hours in a tiny garden.

There is no reason to assume that the Garden was tiny.

The Genesis account claims that the Garden contained “every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food” (Genesis 2:9)

Even if God had planted only one of every tree that is pleasant to look at and/or grows food that would take a lot of space.

Then when you add “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” (Genesis 2:19) to dwell there and a river that is wide enough to split into four heads (Genesis 2:10) - the Genesis account leaves me thinking that the Garden must have been massive.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

It is, though. Had every man in Jesus' lineage kept it in his pants, so to speak, he wouldn't have been born.

Wow - this is just a really stupid thing to say.

First off - your claim wasn’t “Jesus’ lineage was the product of sexual intercourse” - your claim was that Jesus descended from the specific union of Judah and Tamar - through their son Pharez.

You made that erroneous claim in some demented attempt to discredit the Lord Jesus Christ - as if He could be blamed for what His mortal ancestors did.

Also - it was Joseph that descended from Pharez - not the Lord Jesus Christ - so your claim was also an attempt to push the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ was not the Son of God.

You have every right to believe that - but you can’t try to claim that the Bible teaches it - because it doesn’t.

Lastly - literally everyone on the planet exists today because their ancestors did not “keep it in their pants” - so I don’t understand what point you were trying to make - other than it was stupid.

So, Paul is neither my messiah nor my God. I don't care what he thinks.

Ok. A couple of things to unpack here.

First - neither God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ wrote a single word of the Bible or any other book of scripture.

Therefore - everything we know about them comes from men who were not your Messiah or God. Everything.

You have every right to believe what you want and pick and choose what is or is not the truth from the books written by inspired men - but you should be careful or you may come out a hypocrite.

Also - I don’t know if you will believe this because the Bible claims that it was written by a guy named Matthew - not your Messiah or God - but it records the Lord Jesus Christ condemning “evil thoughts” - which lead to “evil actions” - that “defile a man”,

“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” (Matthew 15:19-20)

You’ll notice that fornication is among those evil actions that the Lord Jesus Christ claims defiles men.

The Lord’s servant - Paul - was merely sharing what the Lord Himself taught proving that rejecting the words of His servants can cause someone to reject His Word.

He told ME that He didn't say half the stuff in it. If God doesn't lie, then ....

You have every right to believe what you want - and by this claim I suppose you consider yourself to be a prophet?

Only prophets can receive the authority to declare what should or should not be considered scripture or the Word of God.

Otherwise you are just applying your own interpretation - which you have the right to do - but it bears no weight for anyone but yourself.

I do believe that God revealed His Word, only that reality is God's Word, not some book. Only the publishers of the texts want people to continue to commit idolatry.

I believe that God reveals Himself - or His Word - to us on every level and from every angle.

Yes - He does reveal Himself and His Word through the manifestations of His Works - but that does not mean that He could not also speak to men and have His Word written by them.

It feels like you have taken this approach because you simply don’t like some things that are written in the scriptures and it is my understanding that people do this because they want to justify their own sins.

What sins do you commit - which the scriptures condemn - and have caused you to reject their testimony?

He DID specifically choose her as a mate for Hosea PRECISELY because she was a hooker. It was the entire reason for the marriage.

This is not accurate.

It was Hosea himself who chose Gomer to be his wife.

God did command Hosea to take a “wife of whoredoms” but the record claims that Hosea chose his wife from among those women.

I’m not a betting man but I believe that God most likely chose Hosea for this task because he already had an affection toward Gomer - or her for him.

And it would have to be that way if this was to be a true parallel between God and His relationship with idolatrous Israel.

You see - God did not choose the nation of Israel at random. He had a preexisting affection for them because of what their patriarch Abraham had done.

The entirety of Mankind are the “children of whoredoms” and God made promises to Abraham and his seed because Abraham loved God and was obedient to Him.

Therefore - God’s love remained with Abraham’s seed - even though they had become idolatrous in Egypt and worshiped a golden calf after He had freed them - He still made His covenant with them because He loved them.

If this is a true parallel - then Hosea (representing God) would have already had some affection for Gomer (representing Israel) before their marriage and most likely she for him - even though she could not stay faithful.

The record claims that Gomer committed adultery and had many lovers - just as Israel had committed idolatry with their neighboring nations.

God claimed that Gomer would pursue her lovers in an attempt to fulfill her needs but she would one day lose everything she thought made her happy and she would realize that she had had it better with Hosea.

Just as Israel followed false gods but will eventually realize their error and return to Him.

At that time - Gomer would forsake her adulteries and Hosea was to forgive Gomer and they would become “betrothed” again and the marriage covenant would be reestablished.

Just as Israel would forsake their false worship and reaffirm their covenant with God.

The record claims that before this happened Gomer somehow found herself in slavery - either literal or figurative it is unclear - but it claims that Hosea purchased her and freed her and had her again for his wife.

If this is a true parallel then it is a beautiful story of mercy and forgiveness and teaches how the Lord Jesus Christ had already redeemed (repurchased) us and that He will always remain faithful to us even if we are unfaithful to Him.

As a theist I don't have to. I just ask God. The bible isn't a horcrux. If I stab it, God's blood doesn't come out of it. It's the difference between reading the manual and driving the car. You're only driving if you're behind the wheel of an actual car.

No one said that you had to do anything - but you are going to be at a significant disadvantage if you don’t study God’s past dealings with Man.

We teach history to our children so they don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.

We only have one lifetime to learn about God and His nature - so why not take additional information from the lifetimes of others to learn as much as we can?

God doesn't need the bible's permission to do whatever He wants. God is the God here, not the bible.

Obviously - I never said otherwise.

However - you wouldn’t know anything - literally anything - about God if His truths had not been preserved for millennia in the scriptures.

He wants everyone to learn of Him and not everyone is spiritually inclined or willing to pray and seek a personal relationship with Him to find answers.

He wants His Word and Will to be discernible by everyone on every level - so He also had men write His Word.

Abe specifically sends his sister/wife to go hang out with Pharaoh so he can get tax breaks.

First off - his name was Abraham - not Abe. Got it, Kel?

Second - as I have said before - you are free to believe what you want - but you cannot claim that the Bible records this because it doesn’t.

The Genesis account clearly records that Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt to avoid famine. (Genesis 12:10)

It was then that Abraham told Sarah to claim that she was his sister - and not his wife - to avoid the Egyptians killing him for her sake,

“Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.” (Genesis 12:12-13)

Then it records that Abraham did not send Sarah to the Pharaoh but that the princes of Pharaoh saw her and took her from him,

“The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.” (Genesis 12:15)

It was then that Pharaoh decided to pay Abraham for his “sister” and after the truth was revealed Pharaoh sent them away along with what he had already given them.

Abraham’s sole intention was to avoid death by famine and the evil and unjustified violence of Pharaoh and he knew that God would protect his wife - which He did - and that all would be well.

You adding your own spin to the text - and in such a biased and negative way - showcases your immaturity and lack of sincerity.

I don't think we should continue conversing on this topic.

 

[Mitty]

Why would the gospel writer report Jesus "loved" him--so he could be stoned to death?

Is that why the Romans executed him? And what evidence do you have that the gospel writer even knew Jesus anyway, given that the gospel was written about 70 years after Jesus was executed for sedition and falsely claiming to be the Jewish king.

Why did David command all Israel sing the song about his "love" for Jonathan, so he could be stoned to death?

So how on Earth would they know if David and Jonathon were having anal sex, given that David was the Jewish king and his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7)? Or do you think that he would have had sexual relations with Jonathon in a public lavatory and not in the privacy of the king's boudoir?

But either way, David still said that his love with Jonathon was more wonderful than with any of his wives or concubines (2Sam 1:26), even though Jonathon's father was disgusted with their relationship (1Sam 20:30).

And it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality.

If Nigel Wright tells me he was born gay or else chose to be gay late in life, what does that have to do with trying to suppress desires while serving as a third generation clergymen?

None of that off-handedness, however, changes the fact that Nigel Wright was obviously so born from his mothers' womb (Matt 19:12). Or do you believe that Nigel Wright and other homosexual clergymen are imprinted by the church? Or do you believe that Nigel Wright was imprinted by his father and grandfather?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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.

I never said that it was up to you or me - why would you comment as if I did?

I was questioning your statement, "God [made] homosexuals and then supposedly condemn[ed] them".

Since God only condemned homosexual acts - not attraction - you seem to be saying that it is God who is causing people to commit homosexual acts.

I'm trying to determine your stance on that issue.

I would agree that the drive is "largely genetic" - which has been referred to as the state of the "natural man" or the "thorn in the flesh" in the scriptures.

Our mortal bodies are filled with weaknesses or predispositions towards various sins.

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

Wait. Didn't you ask the question - of theists - "Why did God make them this way?"

What kind of response would you not reject by claiming that it was an assumption?

You asked a theist and you got an answer from a theist.

No theist is going to have God's fingerprint.

The question is about God - so your are going to get answers based on faith and belief.

Doesn't that stand to reason? Why is this lost on you?

BTW - none of the "scientific data" you have referred to so far (but have yet to share) contradicts the scriptures in any way that I can see.

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.

I'm not ignoring anything.

I just recognize the truth that sin is universal and is unaffected by culture or time.

It's like gravity. It worked the same then as it does now.

No culture is gonna change how gravity and sin work.

As long as human beings are imperfect - there will be sin.

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

Not at all - because I do not consider the Bible - or any other book of scripture - to be inerrant or divine.

When it comes to eternal truths - they are always true.

It doesn't matter who received that truth - it will always be true.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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?

You don't have to agree with my claims - but you have hardly proven them to be false - you just insist that they are - with no due consideration.

The idea that you believe the word "recompence" used in Romans 1 means anal sex is hilarious though and it ignores the rest of that chapter.

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?

I can't tell you that because I do not believe that it is true.

 

[Mitty]

You don't have to agree with my claims - but you have hardly proven them to be false - you just insist that they are - with no due consideration.

The idea that you believe the word "recompence" used in Romans 1 means anal sex is hilarious though and it ignores the rest of that chapter.

Well may you think that Romans 1 is hilarious but what were the men "working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" and likewise also their women if it wasn't anal sex as obviously described in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13? And where does the bible say that anal sex is the "natural use of the woman" and/or that female genitalia are "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27)?

Or do you think that the men were cleaning out septic tanks with their women instead; or were they just playing tiddly-winks?

I can't tell you that because I do not believe that it is true.

Still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother, or for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister and commit adultery, given the ten commandments etc did not apply to them since biblical morality is obviously just man-made.
Or so the story goes

 

[metis]

Since God only condemned homosexual acts - not attraction - you seem to be saying that it is God who is causing people to commit homosexual acts.

This is not what I said or implied, which I now just repeated again.

Our mortal bodies are filled with weaknesses or predispositions towards various sins.

No doubt.

Wait. Didn't you ask the question - of theists - "Why did God make them this way?"

Yes, but from their perspective-- not mine.

You asked a theist and you got an answer from a theist.

Yep, but whether it's the right answer is the question.

Doesn't that stand to reason? Why is this lost on you?

Since you have to throw an insult into this, which is Biblically unethical btw, this discussion just came to an end. The unfortunate reality is all too many who claim they believe in the Bible act this way. I have taught theology for a great many years, and I don't need someone using such condescending nonsense like the above to try and tell me what God supposedly says.

As Confucius supposedly said, the more you know the more you should know you really don't know. Thus arrogance and condescension is the enemy of any serious approach to theology.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I apologize for the delay in my response. Life is crazy.

That being said - I have decided to only respond to your initial comment due to your use of the term “hate speech” to categorize what I have said.

I believe it would be a futile effort to engage with someone who would say such a thing. Use such a tactic.

I don’t believe we are going to find any compromise - but if you decide to change tactics - I may respond to the remainder of your posts.

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

This is a perfect example of someone trying to foist their beliefs onto someone else.

The word foist means “to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant” or “to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit”.

Not only have you stated - as if it were fact - that the concept of “hate speech” exists - but you also claimed that anyone who shares their belief that sin exists and that we all commit sin is someone who engages in this “hate speech”.

That was an attempt to foist your beliefs upon me because you introduced these concepts as if they were facts - rather surreptitiously - in an attempt to force them upon me.

Even your claim that our responsibility to “care for others” should include policing their speech is an attempt to foist your beliefs upon me because not only do I not believe that that would help anyone but I also do not believe I have the right to police anyone’s speech.

If you had instead said something like, “I believe that what you said constitutes hate speech and that we all have the responsibility to moderate those who engage in it in order to best care for others. “ - that would not have been you attempting to foist or force any of your beliefs on me.

I would have disagreed with you - of course - but that would have been you simply sharing what you have come to believe and that you believed that it should be applied to everyone - not a statement of fact.

You’ll notice that that was the manner in which I shared my beliefs. I never tried to force anything on anyone - which is the exact opposite of what you have been doing here.

Now - I do not believe I have engaged in “hate speech” - nor do I believe that such a thing even exists.

Speech is speech - hateful or otherwise - and as an American citizen I believe that people have the right to freedom of speech as declared by the US Constitution.

It does not matter if I agree with their speech or if I consider it hateful - they have the right to speak.

I - of course - will argue with them if I feel the need - but I have no right to try and stop them from speaking.

I understand that every platform - such as this website - has its own rules and can take it upon itself to moderate our speech if we were to violate said rules - but that makes sense because we all agreed to follow those rules before participating in the forum.

I did not - however - agree to abide by your personal and subjective rules of conduct.

Now that all of that is out of the way - whose “hate speech” are you even referring to here?

Those guys who claimed that I abused children because I believe in sin? Or that I would hate my own children if they developed an attraction to the same-sex?

Or when you claimed that I was a bigot who “dehumanizes” others because I believe they commit sin (even though I believe that the whole of Mankind commits sin) and that I also engaged in “systemic violence”?

Or was it when you falsely claimed that I believed that there were those who were “inferior” to me and you then lied about something I had said in another thread to try and paint me as a racist in support of that idea?

Those are the only instances of “hate speech” I see in any of the conversations that I have had on this thread.

I understand that crying “Hate Speech!” has been an effective tool for those who have no valid argument (usually those of the political Left) to bludgeon their opponents - attacking their character rather than their arguments - but this is a forum - a place of open discussion - and I do not believe that I have broken any of this forum’s rules.

If you believe that I have broken any of the forum rules - please feel free to report me - but I do not believe that I have and those are the only rules on this forum that matter.

Your ambiguous interpretation of what should or should not be considered “hate speech” - which seems to be whatever you don’t like or agree with - in order to silence your opponent - has no bearing on me.

Also - this veiled accusation that I don’t care about others is baseless.

Just because I disagree on what can harm us and what kind of help we all need - that does not mean that I do not care about others.

Just like the other forum members on this thread - you try to operate from this obnoxious and sanctimonious position of assumed moral and intellectual superiority just because I believe in the scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

Just like the other forum members on this thread - you try to operate from this obnoxious and sanctimonious position of assumed moral and intellectual superiority just because I believe in the scriptures.

You believe in your interpretation of the scriptures, and then you do what you're accusing me of doing: foisting that belief upon a whole section of the population. medical science has informed us that sexual orientation is a normal and healthy part of human sexuality and sexual identity -- that that identity is who we are. And then you come along, dismiss that evidence, and claim that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin. 1) That's not what the bible says. 2) When you claim some "sanctimonious moral superiority" by saying that homosexuality is "sin," that attitude and speech is a form of violence against who these people are -- not merely what they do.

The rest of your post is a weak attempt at justifying that position. Look: if you think the bible says "You shouldn't engage in homosexuality," then by all means, you shouldn't engage in homosexuality. But you don't get to foist that "morality" upon the rest of the population who don't believe as you do.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You believe in your interpretation of the scriptures, and then you do what you're accusing me of doing: foisting that belief upon a whole section of the population. medical science has informed us that sexual orientation is a normal and healthy part of human sexuality and sexual identity -- that that identity is who we are. And then you come along, dismiss that evidence, and claim that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin. 1) That's not what the bible says. 2) When you claim some "sanctimonious moral superiority" by saying that homosexuality is "sin," that attitude and speech is a form of violence against who these people are -- not merely what they do.

The rest of your post is a weak attempt at justifying that position. Look: if you think the bible says "You shouldn't engage in homosexuality," then by all means, you shouldn't engage in homosexuality. But you don't get to foist that "morality" upon the rest of the population who don't believe as you do.

You don't use the correct definition of the word foist.

I never disguised my belief to make it look like a fact - like you are doing here.

You don't understand the difference between sharing an opinion and stating a fact.

The DSM makes no determination about morality.

You don't understand that sin is a product of the natural man (i.e. our "nature").

You ignore your own hypocrisy.

You have been trying to force your beliefs upon me and tried to shut me up by accusing me of engaging in "hate speech".

I have not violated any forum rules.

You act nothing like the Apostles as recorded in the New Testament.

So much for your "apostolic authority".