And how do YOU know that it doesn't exist? You know, someone once told me "you can't prove that something DOESN'T exist; but you CAN prove that something DOES exist." Yes, no one can PROVE that God exists. But there is enough evidence to believe He exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
And how do YOU know that it doesn't exist? You know, someone once told me "you can't prove that something DOESN'T exist; but you CAN prove that something DOES exist." Yes, no one can PROVE that God exists. But there is enough evidence to believe He exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. I would not dare to speak for God unless God had actually instructed me to do so. That would be egotistical.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
Well for one, you don't name or even really describe what this reward is. Secondly, how do you know God is even judging people to begin with?
I'm glad your ego is still in check while speaking for god, lol!
Okay. The most I know what this reward is is basking in God's Glory eternally; meaning, having an eternal closeness to the Almighty and Everlasting God, the Most Powerful Force in the Universe. Now, you can't exactly have that kind of a relationship with the President of the United States, can you? Whatever the reward is (which is why we don't really know what it is; because if we knew what it is, then it wouldn't be a surprise and wouldn't put us into suspense), the Sages of thousands of years ago of Orthodox Judaism have said, based on prophecy on Divine Inspiration, that a single moment of THAT pleasure is more pleasurable than all the pleasures that ever existed from the time of Creation to the very present and future placed into a bottle. Now, can you imagine anything more pleasurable than going on every roller coaster in the world (if you like them) more than a billion times (if you could) or having sex for years non stop? Imagine an eternal orgasm (for a woman) or the climax of pleasure for a man; THAT pleasure, in the World to Come, is more pleasurable than that (whatever THAT pleasure is). We'll just have to wait and find out. But oh, I can't get that pleasure if I don't earn it first by doing good deeds on this world and serving God with all my heart, soul, and resources (to the best of my ability, of course, because that's all God is asking for; that we should serve Him to the best of our ability).
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
Sexuality is part of our human nature, and I don't see any reason why God would have created a human nature that He doesn't want us to use. Pleasure, like pain, are simply features of our body. We have to feel pain everyday in our lives, so why not pleasure too while we can? Trying to repress it will have negative consequences, and if experiencing it doesn't harm anybody, saying that God would dislike that is absurd. Religious teachings can get a bit more realistic.
I don't find why pleasure 'separates' from the spiritual. Sex with love can be very spiritual.
God speaks to us through creation and in our hearts. It's time to accept the reality in our world. If there are people whose nature is that, they were created that way. It's not harming anybody, only hate and oppression harm.
It is remarkable how much space is given to the topic of another's sexuality. It should require none. Believers seem unable to agree whether or not homosexuality is detested by god or not but the best scriptural defence is one of interpretation which is weak at best and as Yanni points out (at great length) incorrect but he thinks w**nking is wrong so what does he know? I prefer RubyEyes take on things, he knows his god is a god of love and as such why would he remove homosexual love from the world he created. That doesn't mean I still don't think he's cherry picking but I'm also not sure about any of his beliefs and hopefully these will become more apparent in threads other than this.
In a way the other side is also cherry picking the OT by choosing which sins to pick on more. The NT is about forgiveness and with that I see most christians throw all the OT laws out the window but hang onto homosexuality being the sin of sins. Well that and atheism.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Hi, Idav. I think we may be edging away from the OP, so let me try to bring it back.
My objection is being preached at about the will of God. I think a good case can be made that the OT God hates homosexuality, but Im just pointing out that God Himself has no problem at all with homosexuality.
As for the ego/prophet thing, the very definition of a prophet is something like a guy who subsumes his own will/ego to the will of God. Were all prophets in the sense that we all believe our own views of life and God are the correct ones. But the truer prophets are the ones who love God truth more than they love their own.
I like to think of myself as just a lowly tool.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yep. And I think a major problem is that some people are trying to adhere to an ancient text, written during more primitive times, rather than simply listening to God directly.
I'm sure the OT God wanted the Jews to increase. So masturbation and homosexuality were condemned.
But we don't live in that world anymore.
What else does "the other side" have to go on? If the bible is the word of god then then it is the word of god, if it is the word of men then it is not the word of god. Which is it?
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
I am sure that reproductive lovemaking is approved and encouraged by God, but why should other forms of sex be denied or restricted? That doesn't follow. They don't harm anybody, and I'm sure if our maker wanted us to have sex only for reproduction He would give us a season for doing so like for example dogs or other animals. But we are sexually capable any time of the year. This can't mean God forbids using our body to fulfil its natural urges, to me, that is tyrannic.
I agree. We now live in a society where, at least in my area, people don't start having children until 25-35, some even later, and very few earlier. Are we supposed to be chaste until then? Come on, God has angels for that. We're humans. Some people mistake this distinction.
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
The Bible is a collection of books, from different authors, places and eras. It's not a single block like you seem to imply.
I imply nothing at all, it is presented thus. Can you suggest a better - or indeed another - source of the word of god for use when discussing the word of god amongst those who are discussing, well, the word of god?
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
I just presented the view that the Bible being either "the word of God" or "the word of man" is a false dichotomy.
I think human nature, and Nature itself in fact, are good places to search for God. It can be misleading to call it 'word' here, though.
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
But not everybody is Yanni. What I said is still true, though. The Bible is a collection of books, and they were picked by the first Fathers of Christianity. Some books were excluded, and some were not. If humans could do this task before (and s/he seems to agree on this), why can't we do so now too? Our society seems to have progressed in this time in some ways, including tolerance, equality, integration, peace, better treating of animals, ...
The Bible is human writing, but there is an important message, and that is Christ. Christ has transcended all writings and the genuine faith of many has been transmitted during two millennia. Christ wants us to love God and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
If some people are born different, and they do no harm to others by following their path in life, then saying that a loving God disapproves that is incoherent. And I try to keep my faith coherent. I believe in a loving God, like Jesus claimed He was.
Last edited:
But surely the message of Christ is no different than anything else in the Bible. I understand that you relate to it and clearly it is the basis for your worldview and you have genuine faith in a loving god but I do not understand how this Jesus is not cherry picked from the same book that condemns homosexuals to hell. It is too simplistic to say that the "good bits" are god and the "bad bits" are men.
RubyEyes
Truth Seeker
That is simplistic, but I'm not doing that.
I can clearly see a difference on the 'Jesus bits' and OT's Leviticus. The latter is a book that is most likely the law of an ancient society, and there it remains.
The former, to me, and to many people, is a transcendent event: so transcendent that it's today the largest faith in the world. If the Bible didn't exist, I would still believe in Christ, because since He came to Earth His followers have transmitted themselves the message, in person, in faith, in the Church, in the community, and in the spirit, and I personally feel Christ.
The Son of God's come to Earth is not comparable to some society's laws. Christ is the true axis of Christianity.