God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[Skwim]

only in literal meaning and maybe translation.
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. I Cor. 2
Natural = psychic = woman = Jew.
Spiritual = pneumatic = man = Gentile.
Psychic and pneumatic form a syzygy - only way to enter Pleroma. Rom, 1 is about psychic - pneumatic relationship not sexual reference. See Elaine Pagels's " The Gnostic Paul " for detailed explanations.
[PDF/ePub Download] the gnostic paul eBook

Good grief! This is the most tortured interpretation I've seen in quite awhile.

.

 

[Prestor John]

Look it all depends on the Terminology, in which seduce is being used.

Look a person can say, I was seduce into believing this or that.

A woman can say, she was seduce into having sex or a man can say, that he was seduce in having sex.

It all depends on which way the terminology is being used for seduce.

My case is supported biblical, just because you do not understand those things which are spiritual, does not mean that they do not exist.
As it is written in the bible--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
1 Corinthians 2:14.

You see those things which I speak of are spiritual and it takes those who understand spiritual things, to understand spiritual things.

No, we are not speaking of spiritual things.

Satan having sex with mother Eve is a physical thing, not spiritual.

The Hebrew word that was recorded to have been used by Eve has been used many other times in the Old Testament and it had nothing to do with sex.

Why are you proposing that this one instance was in reference to sexual seduction, when none of the others were?

Also, why do you focus on only a part of what Eve was recorded to have said?

"And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

She very clearly mentioned that she was "beguiled" or "deceived" or "led astray" into eating of the Fruit.

No mention of sex.

Not only that, but why do you continue to ignore Genesis 4:1 which clearly records that Cain was conceived by Adam knowing his wife Eve?

Instead of trying to belittle me with your virtue signaling and claiming to be the "chosen one", how about you acknowledge your very obvious confirmation bias.

The Biblical record does not support what you claim.

 

[Prestor John]

Except many gay and lesbian people have biological kids of their own or adopt. Do those kids not count? What about infertile people? If adopted kids matter just as much, then your viewpoint seems to not make sense when it comes to the offspring thing. Nevermind that gays and lesbians usually do find a partner to spend their lives with, you just want to declare that somehow illegitimate.

My post was in reference to eternal mates and having offspring in eternity.

One of the main reasons we are here in mortality is to find our mates that we will spend eternity with, not only our lives here on Earth.

It is possible to have the marriage covenant perpetuate into eternity, as long as it is sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Same-sex couples cannot be sealed because their union cannot create posterity in eternity.

Therefore, anyone who enters into a "same-sex marriage" will be separated from their partner upon physical death and they will be unable to produce offspring in eternity.

 

[Skwim]

You still seem to want to see our inherent separation from God because of our selfish human nature as a design flaw--but as I said, we needed to have that kind of a nature to survive as a species on Earth.

It certainly wasn't the plan when god created A&E. Everything was suppose to come up roses and rainbows on earth. And as far as this "need" arising, you'd have to point to scriptural evidence, because as it stands it's nothing more than needful, baseless conjecture.

We just need to have a different kind of a nature to survive in the presence of God for eternity--and He designed a mechanism by which those who are appointed to salvation can put off their human nature and share in the divine nature. The genius of that IS worth praise, worship, trust and love.

Okey dokey.

Seeing any of this plan as a "flaw" is merely a sign of not understanding it--but I totally get that, because most believers and unbelievers alike are not used to thinking about any of this rationally. (It only takes a quick perusal of this thread to confirm that fact.) I'm here to try to help undo some of the damage done by irrational blowhards.

And rationally, it makes sense for a loving and just god who expects worship and adoration from his creation to require that it suffer in order to advance to GO. You do know that suffering can be painful, distressing, and debilitating don't you? Something a lot of people wouldn't wish on their worse enemy. Yet god deems it a just prerequisite to lay on all of humankind.

.
.

 

[socharlie]

Good grief! This is the most tortured interpretation I've seen in quite awhile.

.

we are ignorant of what they were doing, they, then had no head ache how we would interpret this 2000 years later. why would Paul out of blue would start discussing homosexuals, anyway?

 

[Ralphg]

In the times when those books were written nobody could have even imagine people being able to create ‘laboratorium-babies’ so ‘marriage’ was a ‘must’.

 

[Axe Elf]

It certainly wasn't the plan when god created A&E. Everything was suppose to come up roses and rainbows on earth. And as far as this "need" arising, you'd have to point to scriptural evidence, because as it stands it's nothing more than needful, baseless conjecture.

You talk about Adam and Eve as if they were real people, in a real Garden of Eden, but I find that view to be irrational as well, based on what we know about the history of the Earth, human civilization, and the origins of our species. More rationally, the Garden of Eden myth is an allegory intended to explain why we are fundamentally separated from God (and His nature of love) by our human nature of selfishness. (Hate is not the opposite of love, selfishness is.) This is our "original sin," wanting to be our own gods (which, incidentally, is also what got Satan thrown out of heaven in the first place). Because of nothing more than our human nature, we were all separated from God until Jesus bridged the gap back into His presence.

I don't know that I have scriptural evidence that human beings need a selfish, self-centered, self-serving nature of self-interest to survive as a species (and I would be surprised if you would consider Biblical evidence to be convincing anyway), but I could refer you to the works of Darwin and others who have concluded that individuals who are more concerned with their own survival are more likely to survive and reproduce and perpetuate the species.

And rationally, it makes sense for a loving and just god who expects worship and adoration from his creation to require that it suffer in order to advance to GO. You do know that suffering can be painful, distressing, and debilitating don't you? Something a lot of people wouldn't wish on their worse enemy. Yet god deems it a just prerequisite to lay on all of humankind.

It actually DOES make sense, when you think about it rationally--but like I said, most people have never been required to do so. Let me see if I can walk you through this quickly.

An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes. An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes. An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes. So, if an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God exists, we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes, and all the suffering and evil that we observe is only that amount of suffering and evil that is necessary to the best of all possible universes.

And why would suffering and evil be necessary components of the best of all possible universes? Because things only exist in contrast to their negation. Darkness makes no sense except as the absence of light. Fish don't know they are in water, because they never experience anything that is "not-water." So in order for us to perceive, understand, and know what "good" is, we also have to know what "evil" is. Apparently God feels that a universe that has both is a better universe than one which has neither. And by our experiences with evil and suffering on Earth, we are able to appreciate the absence of those things in heaven.

So it really does make sense, when you think past the idea that God could have just created the universe without evil and suffering if He wanted to. I can't imagine the arrogance of a man, with his almost infinitesimally limited perspective, trying to tell God that the universe would be a better place if only this thing or that thing were different.

 

[Skwim]

we are ignorant of what they were doing, they, then had no head ache how we would interpret this 2000 years later. why would Paul out of blue would start discussing homosexuals, anyway?

Not understanding.

.

 

[idav]

Yet he saw fit to put us here.

.

Sure and God tried to destroy most of humanity, tried to confuse humans with language, several wrath’s after he had supposedly destroyed evil, an enslavement of his people, freeing them and then punishing them to walk the deserts, and several covenants cause humans are never good in the Heavenly Fathers eyes. Gods final go to was sacrificing his first born cause humans will never be good enough no matter what, cause we are the exact way we were created , with sensuality and wanting sex and other horrible atrocities that displease the big guy.

 

[InChrist]

Is it just some eeeeew factor, or does it go deeper than this?

.

Because male and female represent the image of God.... it goes deeper...

"Man is two-dimensional


Finally, the last item I want you to take note of is that man is two dimensional. He's not just male; he's male and female. Look closely at verse 27:


... so God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female.


Genesis 1:27


Do you see that? Man is male and female.

• Man is not just male;
• nor is man just female.

It takes both sexes to comprise man. Neither sex alone is sufficient.

• Man doesn't exist in the male alone;
• nor does man exist in the female alone.

Herein lies the reason homosexuality is so forcefully and so clearly proscribed throughout scripture. Man exists only in the union of both sexes. In the absence of that union, man, in a sense, doesn't really exist - meaning God has lost his kingdom marker."
Homosexuality Exclusive

 

[Skwim]

You talk about Adam and Eve as if they were real people, in a real Garden of Eden, but I find that view to be irrational as well, based on what we know about the history of the Earth, human civilization, and the origins of our species. More rationally, the Garden of Eden myth is an allegory intended to explain why we are fundamentally separated from God (and His nature of love) by our human nature of selfishness. (Hate is not the opposite of love, selfishness is.) This is our "original sin," wanting to be our own gods (which, incidentally, is also what got Satan thrown out of heaven in the first place). Because of nothing more than our human nature, we were all separated from God until Jesus bridged the gap back into His presence.

Fine if you cherry pick the Bible to support your theology and therefore need to dismiss the whole A&E story, but I'm not about to get into the whys and wherefores of it.

It actually DOES make sense, when you think about it rationally--but like I said, most people have never been required to do so. Let me see if I can walk you through this quickly.

An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes. An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes. An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes. So, if an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God exists, we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes, and all the suffering and evil that we observe is only that amount of suffering and evil that is necessary to the best of all possible universes.

All which points to a condition that doesn't exist. Considering our notion omnibenevolence, the god of Abraham doesn't measure up. And the same can be said of his other two "omni" abilities.

And why would suffering and evil be necessary components of the best of all possible universes? Because things only exist in contrast to their negation. Darkness makes no sense except as the absence of light.

Nope. This sorry argument has been shot down so many times it isn't worth addressing anymore.

So it really does make sense, when you think past the idea that God could have just created the universe without evil and suffering if He wanted to.

Being all powerful, as you say he is, why couldn't he? Why was he constrained to creating a universe with evil and suffering? And just saying "he was" doesn't suffice.


.

 

[Skwim]

It takes both sexes to comprise man. Neither sex alone is sufficient.

So what is a female?

Herein lies the reason homosexuality is so forcefully and so clearly proscribed throughout scripture. Man exists only in the union of both sexes.

What the heck does that mean? That men, like priests, who never have sex with a female don't exist?

In the absence of that union, man, in a sense, doesn't really exist - meaning God has lost his kingdom marker."

Homosexuality Exclusive

Oh, I guess it does. Gotta say, that's one goofy site you linked to.

.

 

[socharlie]

Not understanding.

.

sorry, it was response to:
Good grief! This is the most tortured interpretation I've seen in quite awhile.

 

[Axe Elf]

Fine if you cherry pick the Bible to support your theology and therefore need to dismiss the whole A&E story, but I'm not about to get into the whys and wherefores of it.

Dismiss it? Perhaps you had better re-read my post, for comprehension this time. The Garden of Eden myth is of prime importance in understanding the entire message of the Bible, as it describes how humans are fundamentally separated from God by their very nature, setting up the whole need for a Savior in the first place. I just understand it in a rational way that coincides with everything else we know about the origins of Earth and humanity, rather than thinking about Adam and Eve as real people, in a real place called the Garden of Eden.

All which points to a condition that doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, I missed it. WHAT condition doesn't exist?

Considering our notion omnibenevolence, the god of Abraham doesn't measure up. And the same can be said of his other two "omni" abilities.

For someone who seems interested in explanations that run deeper than merely, "It is so," you sure throw out a lot of unsubstantiated "It is so"s. Can you construct a rational argument as to why the God of Abraham does not measure up to the quality of omnibenevolence? And there are actually THREE other "omni"s (omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence), but I would be interested to hear any rational argument you might have as to why the God of Abraham does not measure up to the two omins that I mentioned, omniscience and omnipotence.

Nope. This sorry argument has been shot down so many times it isn't worth addressing anymore.

If you don't want to walk me through it, I would greatly appreciate your referral to a source that could demonstrate that things do NOT exist except in contrast to their negation. It has always seemed like a self-evident principle to me.

For instance, if I told you that everything in the universe is "begour," you might ask me what begour is. I would tell you that it is everything, because there is nothing that is not begour in the universe, and you still would have no clue. This is how it would be if everything in the universe were pleasurable and good. The concepts of pleasurable and good would have no meaning for us. I believe that God thinks it is better that we understand these concepts so that we can appreciate heaven when we get there--because of its contrast to the material world in which suffering and evil exist.

Being all powerful, as you say he is, why couldn't he? Why was he constrained to creating a universe with evil and suffering? And just saying "he was" doesn't suffice.

I just told you--twice now, if you count this post as well. God wanted to, knew how to, and was powerful enough to create the best of all possible universes. It is better to know pleasure and goodness than not to know them, and the only way to know them is by their contrast to evil and suffering. Even God can't create a one-sided coin--and that's not a limit of omnipotence (all power), because there is no amount of power that can create a one-sided coin.

 

[Mister Emu]

But by all means, prove me wrong and provide a logically consistent, non-circular argument for homosexuality being inmoral, that doesn't rely on "God said", or any of the classic fallacies, and holds up to follow questions, and I'll happily admit my error.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe homosexuality is sinful. If you could provide me a logical foundation for that belief, I'd be grateful.

I want to be sure of what you are looking for, because, it's been pretty much done to death that all morality is based on unproven assumptions and that the is/ought divide can only be bridged by a supernatural/metaphysical reality.

Do you want me to craft an argument such that no one could rationally deny that some moral statement(homosexual actions are sinful/immoral in this case) is true? Do you want me to argue a system of morality that stays true to its assumptions, doesn't contradict itself, is deeper than "god said!" and has as one of its statements that homosexual actions are wrong?

 

[Aldrnari]

I don't know that they ARE inherently selfish--they MAY be, but I don't KNOW that they are--my point was merely that ANYTHING we do out of selfishness separates us from God, and so ALL of us are inherently separated from God by our human nature.

Huh. Seems rather needy (and even selfish in itself) to me. If folks can be rational enough to know that people have selfish desires they need to fulfill from time to time to keep themselves sane (such as playing video games when they come home from work to decompress), why can't god? Even my gf understands, and gives me my own time to myself when i need it, and vice versa.

The gossipers look down on the liars who look down on the homosexuals, who look down on the adulterers, etc., but nobody here gets out alive (unless of course God has appointed you for salvation). THAT is the righteous judgement of God (and the grace of God).

I... Have a problem with that. See, the bible specifically calls out homosexuality many times- even calling for their deaths in Leviticus 20:13.

The thing is, these people can't change who they are. They are born (made) this way. There are no such verses against heterosexuality, yet homosexuality is called out specifically as evilness. How can you come to the conclusion that he means all when only homosexuality, and not heterosexuality is addressed?

It'd be like the bible calling out black people for being black (something they're born as, and can't control), and calling them evil many times, then staying absolutely silent in regards to white folks.

How does "gay behavior is evil, and worthy of death" translate to "all behavior is evil, and worthy of death?" I don't see that...

"Fair" doesn't enter into it--as Romans 9:18-21 explains...

"So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills. You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will? But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use?" (Amplified Bible)

So it's no more unfair of God to create some people for salvation and some for destruction than it is for you to make a batch of cookies and throw away the ugly ones.

Oh... Oh really...

So god makes people with the intent of sending them to be eternally tortured, no matter how hard they try to fight against this fate? He just makes them so they can be tortured?

I... Don't see how anyone could bow down and worship such a willfully evil god... What am I missing?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's a good argument to be made that the verses in the Bible were referring to foreign religious sexual practices and not homosexuality as we know it today since they had no concept of sexual orientation, at least not the one we have today. One of those verses from Paul is rather irrelevant because he uses a word ("arsenokoitai") which he made up, appears nowhere else and no one knows what it means. That word is usually translated as two or more words like "homosexuals", "homosexual prostitutes", "abusers of themselves with mankind", "effeminate", etc. Saying that the original meaning of those verses is a blanket ban on homosexuality is rather anachronistic. Either way, the Christian (and Muslim) obsession with homosexuality is very strange.

 

[Axe Elf]

If folks can be rational enough to know that people have selfish desires they need to fulfill from time to time to keep themselves sane (such as playing video games when they come home from work to decompress), why can't god?

Why would you say that He doesn't? I would say that God probably understands it even better than we do, having created us like that and all. He understood the shortcomings of our necessary human nature so well that He created a means by which we can transcend them to share in His divine nature forever. That seems awfully magnanimous of Him; He certainly didn't have to make us any different from the other creatures--but He wants to hang out with some of us for eternity. Go figure.

I... Have a problem with that. See, the bible specifically calls out homosexuality many times- even calling for their deaths in Leviticus 20:13.

But in Luke 17:34, two men are lying in one bed, and one is "taken" (raptured/saved) and the other left behind. So maybe there is hope for the homosexual after all.

The thing is, these people can't change who they are. They are born (made) this way. There are no such verses against heterosexuality, yet homosexuality is called out specifically as evilness. How can you come to the conclusion that he means all when only homosexuality, and not heterosexuality is addressed?

I don't know why you don't see the edicts against the improper use of sexuality in heterosexual relationships as well, but I assure you, they are in there. Don't join yourself with a prostitute, don't lust after your neighbor's wife, don't fornicate, don't commit adultery, don't wear gimp suits woven from two different fabrics, etc. That doesn't mean that ALL sexual behavior is condemned, but an awful lot of it is, and it's not just limited to same-sex partners. What I said was not that we are all condemned for some kind of sexual behavior, but that we are all condemned for some transgression of the law or another. Everyone is doomed to die, unless God has appointed you for salvation.

So god makes people with the intent of sending them to be eternally tortured, no matter how hard they try to fight against this fate? He just makes them so they can be tortured?

I... Don't see how anyone could bow down and worship such a willfully evil god... What am I missing?

Maybe you're missing the fact that the only ones who will be eternally tortured are the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. But yes, God creates some people for destruction, once they have served their role in this universe.

"The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil." --Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified Bible)

"While I was with them, I kept and preserved them in Your Name [in the knowledge and worship of You]. Those You have given Me I guarded and protected, and not one of them has perished or is lost except the son of perdition [Judas Iscariot—the one who is now doomed to destruction, destined to be lost], that the Scripture might be fulfilled." --John 17:12 (Amplified Bible)

Those who are created for destruction do not "fight against this fate"--they are made to embrace it. Those who are created for destruction probably don't believe that there is a God, and they expect to cease to exist upon their death anyway. So it will be no surprise to them, let alone a "punishment."

 

[Skwim]

Dismiss it?

Only as true. Not a myth.

I'm sorry, I missed it. WHAT condition doesn't exist?

God's omnibenevolence.

For someone who seems interested in explanations that run deeper than merely, "It is so," you sure throw out a lot of unsubstantiated "It is so"s. Can you construct a rational argument as to why the God of Abraham does not measure up to the quality of omnibenevolence?

Taking benevolence as the crucial operation here, one has to look at its accepted definition

benevolence
noun

The definition of benevolence is a kind act or gift or the doing of kind things for others.​

1. 
   
   benevolence
   
   1. an inclination to do good; kindliness
   2. a kindly, charitable act or gift; beneficence

Noting that "kind" is the operative word here one only has to ask themselves, do all of god's actions fit the definition of "kind/kindness"?

kindness noun
us /ˈkɑɪnd·nəs/
quality of being generous, helpful, and caring about other people, or an act showing this quality:

kindness
noun
1The quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

kindness
(kaɪndnɪs )

Kindness is the quality of being gentle, caring, and helpful.
​

So, any act of god that was less than kind would preclude his being omnibenevolent. And keep in mind that because this is the English word deemed to best describe god's kindness, there's no justification, as some Christians have claimed, to say "although what god did may seem unkind to us, it is really a kindness in his eyes. We're the ones who have established the meanings of these words, and therefore their limiting application depends on how they fit our definition. What god may define as benevolent may not be using the word in the sense as we define it.

So, has god ever done anything less than kind?

Well how about

God has 42 children mauled by bears.
2 Kings 2:23-24 (NIV)
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s widow.
Genesis 38:9-10 (NIV)
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

Genocide after genocide after genocide.
In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.​

Were it anyone else but god no one would consider these acts of violence to be acceptable. They certainly wouldn't attribute them to a man of benevolence, which is why, god doesn't qualify either. Most are done not for some greater good, but out of vengeance. They are not the acts of an omnibenevolent creature. God does bad and disgusting things to innocent people.

And there are actually THREE other "omni"s (omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence),

Yeah, the omnipresence thing almost always escapes me.

If you don't want to walk me through it, I would greatly appreciate your referral to a source that could demonstrate that things do NOT exist except in contrast to their negation. It has always seemed like a self-evident principle to me.

Sorry, but after spending more time than I should have on god's omnibenevolence, I'm not up to it.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The following are "typical interpretations by religious conservatives" as presented by Religioustolerance.org.

Genesis 19 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior, whether by two men, two women, within a loving committed relationship or a "one-night stand."

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Romans 1:26-27 Condemns all homosexual behavior as unnatural.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Jude 1:7 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.
source​

If one accepts the passages cited as those inspired of god, and their interpretation in accordance with conservative Christian understanding, can anyone explain why the Christian god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire"?

I know I'm asking people here to second guess god and his reasoning, but because so many Christians are keen to speak for him on numerous issues I figure some here would have a good insight into his thinking. So, Just what is it about showing sexual affection toward someone of the same sex that turns off god? Is it just some eeeeew factor, or does it go deeper than this?

.

Well, you see, it's like this: since God (possibly absent-mindedly) never wrote anything down Himself, it was left to those humans who (somehow) knew what God thought about everything. Thus it is that God didn't like pretty much everything that His authors didn't like. And was quite fond of the things they did like.

Remarkable, ain't it?