God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Prestor John]

The internet does not have specific laws of conduct nor does it condemn any one group. The Bible is pretty clear on some of its rules (not so clear on others).

What exactly do you believe the Bible is "condemning"? A certain behavior or a certain people?

Considering that homosexual behavior is an active choice made by an individual, how can you claim the Bible condemns people rather than their behavior?

Also, with exception of child porn, pornography harms no one in any real way. No one has been killed or beaten near to death because of the rise of porn.

Death or severe beating are the only measurements of "harm" you use?

So, according to you, a parent should only care about their child's behavior if it will physically harm or kill them?

That's all a loving and tender parent should care about in regards to their children in your world?

Sin is only valid if the god being sinned against really exists.

Exactly right.

This is why those who oppose sin tend to believe or have come to know that God exists before they start opposing sin.

No cart before the horse.

what is bigotry
as defined it is...intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

You can be tolerant of people without tolerating their ideals or behavior.

Do you tolerate them?

Yes, as per the definition of "tolerate", I allow homosexuals to exist, occur and practice their behavior without interference.

Do you allow them to live their lives as they choose?

Their sexual orientation does not give them license to do whatever they choose.

We all live together in society and have to put up with the law and each other.

So far in America intolerance is still legal in 28 of the 50 states.

You have yet to prove that.

Neither of the two examples you provided were cases of intolerance or bigotry.

There were specific and reasonable grounds for, if not firing, then severe disciplinary action.

You have yet to comment on the actual facts of the Beall case I shared with you.

It was obviously more than, "I was fire for being gay" that you and the misleading link you shared claimed.

If I believed that interracial marriage was going against the great noodle monster's' plan I would be considered a bigot.

How is that?

If I then attempted to vote on such a bill that would ban interracial marriage then it would be discrimination other wise known as bigotry in action.

You have every right to vote based on your beliefs and conscience.

I'm calling it out for what I see that it is.

No, you are advocating the enforcement of your personal beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for proving me right yet again.

How does the fact that you run away whenever I offer to go over specifics prove you right? You are the one with bluster. I have supported my claims with evidence time and time again. All you have is your highly biased and wrong interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly do you believe the Bible is "condemning"? A certain behavior or a certain people?

Considering that homosexual behavior is an active choice made by an individual, how can you claim the Bible condemns people rather than their behavior?

And here is the one key error that you constantly make. Homosexuality is not a choice. As long as you continue to make this obvious error you will continue to make bogus arguments.

 

[Ajarn]

Ajarn. As i read your answer a question comes to me.

Do you agree that Religion is based on belief and inner wisdom and to know for sure is science?
In my practice as a Buddhist i have come to gain wisdom aboutmany different topics. Also the topic in discussion. I can not blame those who chose to live like gay couple, but what i can do is to look at the teaching of Both the bible and the buddhist scripture and say both has rules/guidelines how to live a higher moral life. That is how one can say that based on the texts it is moraly wrong to live out the gay sexuality IF one are a religious person. If one are not religious and does not follow any set of spiritual/moral rules then it does not matter if one act out the homosexual part.

Is it ok to kill if you are non Religious, perhaps we need to just use common sense and worry about what effects others, and ourselves, as Buddha said find your own path.
I dont worry what path a Gay person walks, it does not effect me, however if asked i do believe karma is responsible.

 

[loganonekenobi]

What exactly do you believe the Bible is "condemning"? A certain behavior or a certain people?

Considering that homosexual behavior is an active choice made by an individual, how can you claim the Bible condemns people rather than their behavior?

Because they called for an extreme form of the death penalty. Not just a slow execution but one that involved all people in the village. No the bible doesnt say this but historically it was done to ensure that every one saw it and that every one was on board with the law at the time.
Seems personal to me.
If they would have just banished them then one might say it wasn't personal.

You have yet to prove that.

Neither of the two examples you provided were cases of intolerance or bigotry.

There were specific and reasonable grounds for, if not firing, then severe disciplinary action.

You have yet to comment on the actual facts of the Beall case I shared with you.

It was obviously more than, "I was fire for being gay" that you and the misleading link you shared claimed.

asn't personal.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikipedia
there is the proof that the LGBT community does not enjoy the same protections as all others

I've heard many of the religious claim that there is no bigotry toward the LGBT community from them. I say horse hokey.

Most LGBTQ Americans experience harassment and discrimination, Harvard study finds

No, you are advocating the enforcement of your personal beliefs.

Yes you are right. My personal belief is that all people who do no undue harm should have the same rights as every one else. I know it's a radical thought but that's what I believe.

 

[Prestor John]

How does the fact that you run away whenever I offer to go over specifics prove you right?

To be honest, that would very uncharacteristic of me. I tend to aggravate even those who agree with me because I won't let threads die.

That's not to say that I haven't left a thread before. Sometimes I lose track or feel that the discussion isn't going anywhere.

In the case of the latter I usually announce when and why I am leaving the thread.

I would ask you to provide an example of me running away, but considering that you have never once provided an example of anything you claim, I won't hold my breathe.

I have supported my claims with evidence time and time again.

As far as I know, this has never happened. Not once.

All you have is your highly biased and wrong interpretation of the Bible.

You are being dishonest if you are claiming that you do not have a bias when interpreting the Bible. Everyone does.

The only "evidence" you have to support your claim that my interpretation is wrong is that it disagrees with your own.

And we all know that "your" interpretation is not actually "yours" because you rely solely on second-hand sources. You don't read or study for yourself.​

And here is the one key error that you constantly make. Homosexuality is not a choice. As long as you continue to make this obvious error you will continue to make bogus arguments.

This right here. This is what we call an "opinion" and it is worthless.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[columbus]

You are being dishonest if you are claiming that you do not have a bias when interpreting the Bible. Everyone does.

Due to the huge array of differing images and messages to be found in the Bible, I find people's interpretation of Scripture more like a Rorshach test than anything to do with the Creator.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest, that would very uncharacteristic of me. I tend to aggravate even those who agree with me because I won't let threads die.

That's not to say that I haven't left a thread before. Sometimes I lose track or feel that the discussion isn't going anywhere.

In the case of the latter I usually announce when and why I am leaving the thread.

I would ask you to provide an example of me running away, but considering that you have never once provided an example of anything you claim, I won't hold my breathe.​

But I have provided examples. We discussed the myths of Genesis in the past and you ran away from those discussions.

As far as I know, this has never happened. Not once.

Then you are either lying or terribly ignorant. I even offer to support specific claims. At best you never took me up on those.

You are being dishonest if you are claiming that you do not have a bias when interpreting the Bible. Everyone does.

The only "evidence" you have to support your claim that my interpretation is wrong is that it disagrees with your own.

And we all know that "your" interpretation is not actually "yours" because you rely solely on second-hand sources. You don't read or study for yourself.

​

This right here. This is what we call an "opinion" and it is worthless.

Thanks for sharing.

I never claimed not to have a bias. I simply pointed out the fact that your interpretation is highly biased. I am willing to try to honestly interpret the Bible. The problem for you with that is that an honest interpretation makes the work useless. It does not matter what the "God of the Bible" says if you one takes that approach. And you only demonstrated your biblical ignorance in your last claim. One uses other sources to see if one's interpretation holds water. Yours obviously don't which is why you rely on your own highly biased opinions and not those of people that understand the language that the Bible was written in or the context in regards to the beliefs of the people at that time.

 

[Prestor John]

Due to the huge array of differing images and messages to be found in the Bible, I find people's interpretation of Scripture more like a Rorshach test than anything to do with the Creator.
Tom

Neat.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One of the reason mostly all religions, if not all religions teach homosexuality is a sin or is not a right way of life has to do with the moral aspect of being religious. Good Morality is very important in religions to gain the inner wisdom one gain by doing right action, speach and thoughts.
But if one does not follow any religion or cultivation path, the rules are different. Spiritual life is not for everyone

Most religions don't teach that homosexuality is wrong, let alone all. In most of the world, anti-LGBT attitudes are a leftover of European colonialism. I don't know about Buddhism but there's nothing in Hinduism that is against homosexuality. Most cultures just treated it as a fact of life and didn't obsess over it. Regardless, there are LGBT affirming Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so on. It's not a monolithic thing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Most religions don't teach that homosexuality is wrong, let alone all. In most of the world, anti-LGBT attitudes are a leftover of European colonialism. I don't know about Buddhism but there's nothing in Hinduism that is against homosexuality. Most cultures just treated it as a fact of life and didn't obsess over it. Regardless, there are LGBT affirming Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so on. It's not a monolithic thing.

Buddhism talk about about sexual misconduct and that sexual act between two of same sex is not morally a right action. but there is not talk of sin as in christianity. But only about the lack of morality in a homosexual act, so it is the act tht is wrong

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Buddhism talk about about sexual misconduct and that sexual act between two of same sex is not morally a right action. but there is not talk of sin as in christianity. But only about the lack of morality in a homosexual act, so it is the act tht is wrong

"Sexual misconduct" is a very broad term and there are varying views about homosexuality in Buddhism. Early Buddhism appears to have been silent about it. So it depends on your interpretation.

Buddhism and sexual orientation - Wikipedia

 

[Spirit of Light]

"Sexual misconduct" is a very broad term and there are varying views about homosexuality in Buddhism. Early Buddhism appears to have been silent about it. So it depends on your interpretation.

Buddhism and sexual orientation - Wikipedia

Yes that i am agree with you on.
And as a theravada buddhhist my self (early buddhism) i am agree that buddha did not use the word homosexuality. But he was askd about the topic and answer was that it has to do with low morality and also about karmic law.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes that i am agree with you on.
And as a theravada buddhhist my self (early buddhism) i am agree that buddha did not use the word homosexuality. But he was askd about the topic and answer was that it has to do with low morality and also about karmic law.

Where did he say that? Do you have a link to it?

 

[wellwisher]

Unprotected sex, outside of a monogamous relationship between a man and woman increases the risk of sexually related disease. These diseases are a natural reaction to a behavior that is not natural. There is natural selection as well as natural de-selection in nature.

The mistake that is being made is science and medicine has developed ways to prevent and counter STD's. This creates the illusion that anything with natural cause and affect that can be countered, artificially, now becomes natural according to PC.

How about we run an experiment where all the prosthesis needed to combat the spread and creation of sexually related disease is removed and we let nature take its course. Nature will put things back on track. What is left standing we will deemed natural. What is damaged will be asked to wake up and smell the coffee.

The wage of sin is death. This was not a threat, but rather had to do with an ancient awareness of the cause and affect; behavior and disease, at a time without science prosthesis being used to hide a natural cause and affect behind political slogans.

Approximately 4.1 percent of Americans identify as gay, bisexual, or other, according to a Gallup News Study. Despite making up a small fraction of the population, men who have sex with men (MSM) account for more than half of all new cases of HIV each year,

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did he say that? Do you have a link to it?

I doubt if he will provide one. That may be a belief of some sects of Buddhism, but I do not think that it reflects that of all or even most Buddhism

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I doubt if he will provide one. That may be a belief of some sects of Buddhism, but I do not think that it reflects that of all or even most Buddhism

I've never heard of Siddhartha mentioning it, but I'm open to a source for that claim. So I'll give him a chance.

 

[Prestor John]

But I have provided examples. We discussed the myths of Genesis in the past and you ran away from those discussions.

This is actually the very first example you have provided.

As I said previously, it would be uncharacteristic of me to leave any thread, but I do leave if I feel that the discussion is going nowhere, my opponent(s) are being unreasonable or I lose track of the thread.

Could you provide a link to this past discussion? I'd like to read it over to see if you have any reasonable claim to me "running away."

I find it hard to believe that I would leave any thread about the Bible.

Then you are either lying or terribly ignorant. I even offer to support specific claims. At best you never took me up on those.

Yes, you often claim to have some source that supports your argument, but you always come up with a silly reason to never share it.

"I do have evidence that supports my claim, but I'm not going to share it with you because..."

"...you do not know how to debate properly."

- or -

"...because you have been rude."

It is important to note that you judged me according to your own personal standards of what a "debate" is or what is or is not "rude."

I never claimed not to have a bias. I simply pointed out the fact that your interpretation is highly biased.

Bias is bias. There is no more or less biased.

Everyone's interpretation of the scriptures is biased. You and me.

I am willing to try to honestly interpret the Bible.

I do not believe this to be true.

The problem for you with that is that an honest interpretation makes the work useless. It does not matter what the "God of the Bible" says if you one takes that approach.

No.

You have applied a lazy interpretation to 1 Corinthians 7. You never take into account other things that Paul has said, done and taught. Therefore, he read his words and take them out of context.

Paul testified of his religious zealotry as a Pharisee in the book of Acts and in Galatians, proving that he had been married at one time.

Paul encouraged marriage in both his first epistle to the Corinthians and to the Ephesians.

What he said in 1 Corinthians 7 was about a particular group of believers in Corinth concerning a question they asked which we do not know.

The English Standard Bible agrees with how Joseph Smith would have translated 1 Corinthians 7:1.

Eusebius claimed that the "yolkfellow" Paul mentioned in Philippians was a reference to his wife.

Clement of Alexandria claimed that "Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles" were married men.

No one knows what the "present distress" Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7 was exactly. Many believe it had to do with the persecution faced by early Christians.

Adam Clarke and James Burton Coffman, who both wrote two well-known Biblical commentaries, believed this to be the case.

However, concerning your false claim that Paul taught that Christians shouldn't marry...

Clarke said, "...for it never could be his wish that marriage should cease among men, and that human beings should no longer be propagated upon earth; nor could he wish that the Church of Christ should always be composed of single persons; this would have been equally absurd; but as the Church was then in straits and difficulties, it was much better for its single members not to encumber themselves with domestic embarrassments." (Bold and italics added)

1 Corinthians 7 Commentary - Adam Clarke Commentary

Coffman said, "It should be carefully observed, however, that Paul in no sense advocated celibacy, except in certain situations and circumstances, and that even in those cases it was merely "allowable," and not commanded. There is no disparagement of marriage here, Paul's writings in Ephesians 5:22,23, etc., making it abundantly clear that he held the institution of marriage in the very highest esteem. As Marsh said, "He is not writing a treatise on marriage, but answering their questions within the context of current attitudes and circumstances."" (Bold and italics added)

1 Corinthians 7 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible

Joseph Smith believed that the "present distress" was a reference to the short time of ministry had by those called that was commanded by the Lord.

Either way, your claim that Paul believed and taught that Christians should never marry is contradicted by other teachings of the Bible, as well as other words of Paul.

And you only demonstrated your biblical ignorance in your last claim.

On the contrary, treating each verse or chapter as an independent island showcases your ignorance on this subject.

One uses other sources to see if one's interpretation holds water.

Correct. "Other" sources. Not only those anti-religion sources you favor.

Just admit that you have an agenda.

Yours obviously don't which is why you rely on your own highly biased opinions and not those of people that understand the language that the Bible was written in or the context in regards to the beliefs of the people at that time.

L-O-L​

 

[YmirGF]

And here is the one key error that you constantly make. Homosexuality is not a choice. As long as you continue to make this obvious error you will continue to make bogus arguments.

I'm not sure why ignorant theists (and others) trot out this tired narrative? No one, I repeat, no one chooses to be gay. It is not untrue to say that we do choose to adopt a gay lifestyle instead of living a life of misery in roles we do not fit. To embrace ones sexuality IS a choice, just as much as choosing to be a closeted pastor who can't help himself around the young and impressionable choirboys is a choice. One choice reeks of deception and mental instability. You decide which.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not sure why ignorant theists (and others) trot out this tired narrative? No one, I repeat, no one chooses to be gay. It is not untrue to say that we do choose to adopt a gay lifestyle instead of living a life of misery in roles we do not fit. To embrace ones sexuality IS a choice, just as much as choosing to be a closeted pastor who can't help himself around the young and impressionable choirboys is a choice. One choice reeks of deception and mental instability. You decide which.

Through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ all people can overcome their weaknesses if they sincerely repent of their sins and come to Him with full purpose of heart.

We are not able to choose which weaknesses we suffer from, but we can choose to fight against or succumb to them.

Having a same-sex attraction is a weakness. Engaging in homosexual behavior is succumbing to that weakness.

Someone who has a weakness, but does not succumb to their weakness, are not guilty of committing the sins associated with that weakness.