God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[Foxic]

Since god is a direct representation of the mind and will of man, the deity having been created purely from human imagination, it is man who has a problem with homosexuality.

Just as Satan was concocted as a moral scapegoat for mankind, god was concocted as the "judge, jury, executioner" scapegoat where man thought justice was not properly being meet out by those in power.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The relevant issue is Paul's statement that homosexuals are not to be allowed membership in the church.

Paul assisted in the murder of many and HE got in. Weird standards for membership ....

Christianity, is a choice, no one is forced to live by it's tenants.

Depends on the time and place.

I chose not to seek that career.

Your afterlife's quality isn't dependent upon sports participation, though.

That is far from proven. the discussion is about humans, not animals.

You aren't a plant or a mushroom. You are an animal.

I am also aware that many, many Christians theologians have come to the conclusion that homosexuality (including homosexual behaviour) is not wrong, nor hated by God.

The ancient Church also had gay marriages. After all, if there is neither male nor female in Christ, then the genders of the spouses are rather irrelevant, no?

The question needs to be asked, what is the purpose of sex? Is its purpose self pleasure or altruistic and procreation?

Both. There are social components to sex, not just the reproduction part. Many nonhumans use sex as a bonding or political thing. They also masturbate.

Not that sex should not also be pleasurable but that is secondary to sex’s primary purpose which is to serve others.

How does sex "serve others"? If you're a sex bot with no real concept of sex and you're just doing it because your partner got you in the mail yesterday, sure, argue that it's about your partner and not you. If BOTH are living beings, though, some (if you will excuse me) "tit for tat" applies.

Keeping in mind that god never said a man and a woman shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation, why didn't god condemn heterosexual behavior?

I'm not even sure Adam and Eve understood sex is how they got Cain and Abel, as Eve declares that God gave her the kids, not Adam's semen. It reminds me of a fairy tale I was watching on TV. Maybe it was The Storyteller. I can't remember. However, the queen is depressed because they haven't had kids yet and wonders how to get one. The fairy godmother or whatever whispers in her ear what we can assume is The Talk. Lo and behold -- they have a kid.

 

[shmogie]

Keeping in mind that god never said a man and a woman shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation, why didn't god condemn heterosexual behavior?

.[/QUO

I took note of your argument, and essentially agree with much of. I've studied some of the same material myself. I am also aware that many, many Christians theologians have come to the conclusion that homosexuality (including homosexual

Paul assisted in the murder of many and HE got in. Weird standards for membership ....
Nice try. We are ALL guilty of sin. That is a given. Paul repented ( turned away from) and sought forgiveness. He committed no more murders. A sin of mine might be swearing. If I repent of it, I turn away from it and renounce it and do not habitually do it, plan to do it, and blow off what I know to be wrong and bone headidly just do what I want.

Depends on the time and place.


Your afterlife's quality isn't dependent upon sports participation, though.
Nor is being a member of the Church. Your after life participation is your choice, and between you and God.

You aren't a plant or a mushroom. You are an animal.
No, I am a physical being made in the image of God, as you are. According to human made classification starting with Linnaeus, I am classed as an animal. This is an orderly way of looking at creation, like the old library card index, that's all.

The ancient Church also had gay marriages. After all, if there is neither male nor female in Christ, then the genders of the spouses are rather irrelevant, no?

This is an oft repeated fallacy. Heretical beliefs or rights are just that, heresy. I challenge you to substantiate this claim.

Christ said that marriage is between one man, and one woman. That seems awfully easy to understand. You Take Pauls statement re neither male or female hopelessly out of context. He wasn't talking about androgynous sexless humans, nor humans pretending to be the opposite sex, (gender and sex aren't the same ). In context, he was speaking of equal treatment, equal value, equal importance. Only those with a specific agenda twist words totally out of context for that agenda. Using this approach I could prove its perfectly OK to smoke cigarettes according to the Bible because " Abraham lit off a camel ".

 

[Skwim]

Skwim said: ↑
Keeping in mind that god never said a man and a woman shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation, why didn't god condemn heterosexual behavior?

.[/QUO

Please reformat your post. It isn't clear who you're replying to.

.

 

[CohenDavidson]

This is a pretty outdated mode of thinking. Maybe we shouldn't follow ancient texts written by people who were ignorant to much of the knowledge we have acquired since those texts were first written down. I mean, we're talking about people who thought slavery was okay too.

I can assure you that homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, as they have the same genitalia as heterosexual people. My cousin has a child that she gave birth to. She is a lesbian.

What repercussions do you foresee as a result of gay adoption? How come we haven't seen it yet in countries that have allowed gay adoptions for decades?

By the way, if you think there is a problem with broken families in the world today, doesn't it make sense to support gay marriages and the families that result from them?

When you look into our prisons, most of the criminals grew up without a father. When a gay couple decides to adopt, the consequences could result in psychological distress. I'm not sure how, but the data is there to support this. We see that single parent households result in a neglected child in many ways. A child needs a man and women to develop adequately. These children will not get this if they are raised by two members of the same sex. As for the Bible being outdated, that is not so. If you believe the Bible, you must believe it in its entirety, do it seems you perhaps may not, so we do experience a disconnect.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Yes, children abandoned by messed up heteros will finally be able to be loved like they should.

I'm from an abusive childhood. You cannot convince me hetero parents are superior just because they're hetero.

I may not be able to convince you, but it is proven, most criminals in jail grew up with one parent. This is because something is offered by both genders.

About the father and mother raining the kids. This is a picky play on words. When a heterosexual couple has a child, they both play a part is raising the child. You may see the male play with the kids in more physical activities such as sport and the female could offer comfort and compassion. The male may offer physical protection. The female stays home and takes care of the child while the father goes and earns the money. It is a matter of what each gender offers in their own specific roles and abilities.

 

[SomeRandom]

I may not be able to convince you, but it is proven, most criminals in jail grew up with one parent. This is because something is offered by both genders.

About the father and mother raining the kids. This is a picky play on words. When a heterosexual couple has a child, they both play a part is raising the child. You may see the male play with the kids in more physical activities such as sport and the female could offer comfort and compassion. The male may offer physical protection. The female stays home and takes care of the child while the father goes and earns the money. It is a matter of what each gender offers in their own specific roles and abilities.

Do you live in the '30s dude? Single income households haven't existed for like 40 years.
Excepting the rich I'm not sure how a family could even survive in today's economy with such an unrealistic Leave to Beaver style model. Christ, that was outdated when my parents were kids.

Also did you get your parenting advice from the 50s or something? A male should provide comfort unless they're some sort of sociopath. A mother can be strict. It depends on the individual and their parenting style. Hell, growing up half Eastern I can certainly verify the Asian stereotype of super strict mothers waving wooden spoons around kids. Doesn't mean they weren't still comforting when needed, as were the fathers to be honest.
Single parent homes do worse than opposite sex couples statistically. But same sex couples are usually on par or even exceed opposite sex couples for healthy outcomes for their kids. So I find your hypothesis lacking and frankly 60 years out of date.

 

[Prestor John]

That's ok to some.

It sure is “ok” to some to not live up to their eternal potential just like it is “ok” to some to not live up to their potential here upon the Earth.

That doesn’t necessarily make it right though.

And it certainly does not guarantee a life without doubts and regrets.

Do you also thank god I work with kids, and influence them?

That would depend on what kind of influence you had.

Some of my nieces and nephews were able to abandon religion with my help.

This would cause me to not thank God for your work with kids.

I am not about to claim that all religion is good, because that would be illogical and unreasonable, but such a claim would be no different than you saying that all religion is bad.

You injecting your own biases and agenda into these impressionable children (who aren’t even yours) is disgusting to me.

I have a way of priming young minds to ask serious questions, the sort of questions that religion tends to not survive.

Yeah…your focus on “young minds” leads me to think of the words “naive” and “impressionable” again.

I doubt very much that your “serious questions”would sway anyone who actually knows anything.

The idea that you consciously strive to take advantage of the naive and impressionable disgusts me.

No different than the Hitler Youth.

That's cool. But to myself, and many more than you realize, children are a burden, a curse, and way too much what other people expect of us instead of what we want for ourselves.

I would say that anyone who claims that children are a “burden” or a “curse” is incredibly selfish, self-centered and/or evil.

Your children would expect nothing more from you than you yourself expected from your own parents.

You cannot despise children, as you obviously do, without also despising yourself, since you were a child.

Why do you hate yourself?

​

 

[shmogie]

It sure is “ok” to some to not live up to their eternal potential just like it is “ok” to some to not live up to their potential here upon the Earth.

That doesn’t necessarily make it right though.

And it certainly does not guarantee a life without doubts and regrets.

That would depend on what kind of influence you had.

This would cause me to not thank God for your work with kids.

I am not about to claim that all religion is good, because that would be illogical and unreasonable, but such a claim would be no different than you saying that all religion is bad.

You injecting your own biases and agenda into these impressionable children (who aren’t even yours) is disgusting to me.

Yeah…your focus on “young minds” leads me to think of the words “naive” and “impressionable” again.

I doubt very much that your “serious questions”would sway anyone who actually knows anything.

The idea that you consciously strive to take advantage of the naive and impressionable disgusts me.

No different than the Hitler Youth.

I would say that anyone who claims that children are a “burden” or a “curse” is incredibly selfish, self-centered and/or evil.

Your children would expect nothing more from you than you yourself expected from your own parents.

You cannot despise children, as you obviously do, without also despising yourself, since you were a child.

Why do you hate yourself?

​

A typical expose of one with an agenda to manipulate and debase children for a very specific and hideously selfish purpose. Children are a "curse" because they are the result of heterosexual sex. If the result and purpose designed by God, or deemed critical by evolution, is a curse, then un natural variations that don't result in a curse are best. Just another sad attempt to make the aberrant normal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I NEVER once stated it was a choice YOU assumed that. General consensus is an agreement to an opinion or decision or idea, it could be totally wrong, totally right, or something in between. You want to do exactly what you are accusing me of doing plump down on all the information is in, when it isn´t

You said that there is very little evidence that gay people are “born that way” which generally indicates that they have some conscious say in the matter. Perhaps you could clarify as to exactly what it is you are claiming then.

When I say "general consensus" I am referring to the available information and scientific data on the subject. It's also based on my experiences as a heterosexual and the experiences of those people who identify as homosexual.

I find it bizarre that people choose to eat octopus, jump out of planes, shoot themselves, are terrified of cockroaches or spiders, but they do and are

What on earth does this have to do with anything??

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We see that single parent households result in a neglected child in many ways.

Indeed. We never hear about Joseph past a certain point and Jesus just went wild to the point his entire family thought him crazy.

If you believe the Bible, you must believe it in its entirety, do it seems you perhaps may not, so we do experience a disconnect.

I believe that is what is written in the particular bible I'm reading. I don't believe it was dictated by God because there are too many errors and immoral pieces of advice in it.

I may not be able to convince you, but it is proven, most criminals in jail grew up with one parent. This is because something is offered by both genders.

"Single" is not the antonym of "heterosexual".

When a heterosexual couple has a child, they both play a part is raising the child.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you look into our prisons, most of the criminals grew up without a father. When a gay couple decides to adopt, the consequences could result in psychological distress. I'm not sure how, but the data is there to support this. We see that single parent households result in a neglected child in many ways. A child needs a man and women to develop adequately. These children will not get this if they are raised by two members of the same sex. As for the Bible being outdated, that is not so. If you believe the Bible, you must believe it in its entirety, do it seems you perhaps may not, so we do experience a disconnect.

Actually, the data indicates that gay people are no better or worse at parenting that straight couples are. Some studies even indicate that children raised by gay couples are more empathetic and compassionate toward others, than those raised by straight couples.


We’re talking about homes with two parents, so I don’t know why you’re referring to people who grew up in single parent homes. I don’t know if you can rightly claim that most criminals grew up without fathers or not. You’d have to show that to me. But I asked you what problems we could foresee in allowing gay people to have/adopt children. And then you tell me things about single family households, which I’m sorry to have to point out, are irrelevant to the question.


And I don’t know why you think that children need a woman and man raising them to “develop adequately.” The Bible claiming it is so, doesn’t make it so. I’m not even quite sure what you mean by the phrase “develop adequately;” perhaps you could clarify it for me. Do you mean “not gay?” Because if you’re afraid that gay couples are going to raise gay kids, I don’t think there’s much reason to worry there. After all, the vast majority of people who are already gay were raised by heterosexual parents.


I’m not sure why you think that if someone accepts one claim from the Bible, that they’d have to accept all claims from the Bible, but I don’t see how that has to be the case at all. Of course, the Bible is extremely outdated, given that it was written thousands of years ago. The world that the people of the Bible lived in is pretty far removed from the one we live in today. I mean, we’re talking about a world was slavery was widely accepted and even condoned by God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I may not be able to convince you, but it is proven, most criminals in jail grew up with one parent. This is because something is offered by both genders.

About the father and mother raining the kids. This is a picky play on words. When a heterosexual couple has a child, they both play a part is raising the child. You may see the male play with the kids in more physical activities such as sport and the female could offer comfort and compassion. The male may offer physical protection. The female stays home and takes care of the child while the father goes and earns the money. It is a matter of what each gender offers in their own specific roles and abilities.

Outdated thinking indeed.

 

[Prestor John]

Actually, the data indicates that gay people are no better or worse at parenting that straight couples are. Some studies even indicate that children raised by gay couples are more empathetic and compassionate toward others, than those raised by straight couples.


We’re talking about homes with two parents, so I don’t know why you’re referring to people who grew up in single parent homes. I don’t know if you can rightly claim that most criminals grew up without fathers or not. You’d have to show that to me. But I asked you what problems we could foresee in allowing gay people to have/adopt children. And then you tell me things about single family households, which I’m sorry to have to point out, are irrelevant to the question.


And I don’t know why you think that children need a woman and man raising them to “develop adequately.” The Bible claiming it is so, doesn’t make it so. I’m not even quite sure what you mean by the phrase “develop adequately;” perhaps you could clarify it for me. Do you mean “not gay?” Because if you’re afraid that gay couples are going to raise gay kids, I don’t think there’s much reason to worry there. After all, the vast majority of people who are already gay were raised by heterosexual parents.


I’m not sure why you think that if someone accepts one claim from the Bible, that they’d have to accept all claims from the Bible, but I don’t see how that has to be the case at all. Of course, the Bible is extremely outdated, given that it was written thousands of years ago. The world that the people of the Bible lived in is pretty far removed from the one we live in today. I mean, we’re talking about a world was slavery was widely accepted and even condoned by God.

The only issue I would have with homosexual couples adopting children is that those children are going to grow up believing that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Since I believe homosexual behavior to be sinful, I would discourage anything that promotes that behavior.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only issue I would have with homosexual couples adopting children is that those children are going to grow up believing that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Since I believe homosexual behavior to be sinful, I would discourage anything that promotes that behavior.

What is "homosexual behavior?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uhh when discussing the affects of imprinting on sexually abused children the actual discussion tends to be about explaining sexual offenders, as in sex crimes perpetrated by previously abused individuals or even an unhealthy understanding of relationships in general (with regards to expectations or even consent.) Usually through a combination of....."complications" let's say.
To explain sexual orientation however doesn't seem like it's recognised as a consequence. Since that's not really seen as a thing in actual psychology, as far as I know.
Could be wrong. But sexual orientation is not seen as something that is actively affected by imprinting. Otherwise again all the heterosexuals who were abused would be heterosexual specifically because of abuse. I don't think that's how it actually works. Since sexual orientation does seem to develop independent of such occurances.
Sexual kinks/fantasies might be influenced by abuse, but that's not really the same as orientation anyway so.

Also stats please.
Everyone on this board can claim the exact opposite of your "findings" given their interactions with potentially thousands of gay people. So it's nothing but hearsay.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes I am upset when people bear false witness and generally lie about others.

Imprinting has no affect on sexual orientation. It can affects things like sexual fetishes, a cycle of abuse or even unhealthy expectations of relationships (gay or straight or whatever.) You are deliberately misusing a known phenomenon and twisting it to explain your own preconceived prejudices. Quite intellectually dishonest of you, I must say.
Are you honestly suggesting that heterosexual people who were abused or came from broken homes (which accounts for the majority of the stats relating to such phenomenons) are heterosexual specifically because of their broken homes or abuse?

Are you suggesting that we are all born bisexual and then choose to be either gay or straight (which is essentially the implications of gay being a choice?)

Give me actual studies that support your claim, from legitimate sources. Otherwise all you have is fallacious data that has no real merit in a debate.

Then it should be upsetting for you to bear false witness against me, claiming I'm lying.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not in any way qualified to say what goes on in the animal world, but it might just be genetically passed on, as it might be in humans. You can tell the difference? Imprinting has nothing to do with any mechanism that might cause an abused child to be altered by any sexual abuse. they are probably long past any stage where imprinting would have any effect. Do you know anything about imprinting? There is usually a window of opportunity (age range) for such to take effect and outside of this it has no effect.

Imprinting is a rather different kettle of fish.

Had a look at what bonobos get up to - they apparently are our closest primate relatives?

That's what we're talking about via imprinting, early/first sexual experiences.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's what we're talking about via imprinting, early/first sexual experiences.

It's not technically imprinting though. The term, as far as I know, is only used in the animal world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And what conclusions do you draw from this about homosexuals? I apologize if I misunderstood you, but your posts read as though you took childhood experiences to influence sexual orientation. From my experience in working in the health care field, including homosexuals, I presented what true homosexuality is.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?