-
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!
Homophopic........ Me ?
- Thread starter midopafo
- Start date
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
No it is not. It is a judgement on their actions.
The individual may choose to extend that disapproval to them as a person. But that is their problem and ONLY their problem.
When judging the meaning of someones message, we as the receiver must ascertain what the person meant, not what we are afraid they meant.
We must not allow our own preconceptions to effect how we perceive what people mean. It leads to a lot of problems.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
How do you think discussion on this topic could be improved?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Apparently not given that there is a massive range of different opinions towards homosexuality, though Christianity and wider society, ranging from complete acceptance through to unconditional objection with a desire for condemnation and extreme punishment (in life or after).
If you’re going to be literal, homophobia would be “fear of similarity”. You’re clearly not so stupid as to be incapable of understanding the intended meaning of the term in the various contexts it’s used in though, so it’s more than a little dishonest to feign ignorance.
Not that there is a singular LGBT community anyway but I see no desire to “dominate all of society” (this isn’t a religion we’re talking about here
). Ultimately, all homosexuals want is the freedom to live their lives just like everyone else does.
Angels are called "sons of God" and are always portrayed as masculine in the Bible. (Job 38:7) As to the reasons why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the Bible clearly states:
"In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." Their vile conduct merited the punishment they received, IMO. Homosexuality is consistently condemned in the Bible.
All of man (hey look another masculine qualifier which includes women.) are called sons of God. And that the bible refers to them in th masculine is no more indicative of genitalia than God himself. Surprise the bible is built off patriarchal language.
All three of the gospels which meantion the cities do not mention sexual immorality including dialogue from Jesus himself. 'Strange flesh' is mentioned nowhere else in the bible but the only parallel in Greek writing is beastiality. Which is how Hebrews would have viewed having sexual with angels (a life which is not man).
Homosexuality is never actually mentioned in the bible, and the few times it appears in English are translated from words that do not actually mean homosexuality but prostitution and man x boy pedophilia. This is the view of many Christians and Jews. You can read about those perspectives here. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Though personally, it wouldn't matter to me if the bible did condemn homosexuality because I think the bible is more a reflection of bigotry and short-sightedness of men than any divine instruction.
Homosexual conduct is mentioned in the Bible and in explicit enough language that what is meant is clear. For example,
Leviticus 18:22 states; "You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act." Romans 1:27 speaks of those meriting God's disapproval; "likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error."
Both of those scriptures are covered in that website. But if you want a simpler, more direct view, http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html talks about why you can't always take passages as written, otherwise you'd have to concede that, for example, 1 Corinthians 11 forbids women from having short hair or going without head coverings.
8 Possible Topics for Conversation:
(1) The Bible teaches that we are all sinners in need of God's grace. Yet we love each other regardless. So even on the assumption that same sex sexual acts are sinful, why shouldn't gays and lesbians be treated as lovingly as anyone else?
(2) Then there is the issue of biblical fornication, a term that applies to extramarital sex between a man and a woman. If such sex is wrong for heterosexuals, why is it OK for gays and lesbians? Of course, that raises the question of sex in a gay marriage, an issue the Bible can't address because same sex marriage was not a cultural option back then.
(3) In Matthew 19:12, Jesus refers to the acceptability of "eunuchs' from birth." In ancient rabbinic Judaism, this is a euphemism for men who, for whatever reason, lack a natural attraction to women. So it would include gays and lesbians. This seems compatible with the claim that same sex orientation in itself is not sinful; it is the actual practice that is in question.
(4) David's intimate relationship with Jonathan is described as closer than a male/ female relationshiop(2 Samuel 1:26), and it is mentioned that David passionately kissed Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:41). Were one or both of these approved OT figures gay? Probably not. But this tradition implies there is nothing wrong with 2 men loving each other more than many men love their wives.
(5) In 1 Corinthians 6:19, scholars have argued that the Greek terms refer to young call boys and their slave masters in a pederastic exploitative relationship.
(7) In Romans 1:26-27, Paul treats only those same sex sexual acts that are performed by natural heterosexuals. So it might be argued that his prohibition does not apply to naturally born gays and lesbians.
(8) In the Leviticus it is argued that the specific reference is to same sex sexual acts performed in Canaanite fertility cults. In any case, Leviticus is part of the Law of Moses that was rendered obsolete by Christ's atoning death.
Some of these interpretations can be debated, but al least they might stimulate civil discussion on the relevance of the Bible to this controversial issue.
(1) The Bible teaches that we are all sinners in need of God's grace. Yet we love each other regardless. So even on the assumption that same sex sexual acts are sinful, why shouldn't gays and lesbians be treated as lovingly as anyone else?
(2) Then there is the issue of biblical fornication, a term that applies to extramarital sex between a man and a woman. If such sex is wrong for heterosexuals, why is it OK for gays and lesbians? Of course, that raises the question of sex in a gay marriage, an issue the Bible can't address because same sex marriage was not a cultural option back then.
(3) In Matthew 19:12, Jesus refers to the acceptability of "eunuchs' from birth." In ancient rabbinic Judaism, this is a euphemism for men who, for whatever reason, lack a natural attraction to women. So it would include gays and lesbians. This seems compatible with the claim that same sex orientation in itself is not sinful; it is the actual practice that is in question.
(4) David's intimate relationship with Jonathan is described as closer than a male/ female relationshiop(2 Samuel 1:26), and it is mentioned that David passionately kissed Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:41). Were one or both of these approved OT figures gay? Probably not. But this tradition implies there is nothing wrong with 2 men loving each other more than many men love their wives.
(5) In 1 Corinthians 6:19, scholars have argued that the Greek terms refer to young call boys and their slave masters in a pederastic exploitative relationship.
(7) In Romans 1:26-27, Paul treats only those same sex sexual acts that are performed by natural heterosexuals. So it might be argued that his prohibition does not apply to naturally born gays and lesbians.
(8) In the Leviticus it is argued that the specific reference is to same sex sexual acts performed in Canaanite fertility cults. In any case, Leviticus is part of the Law of Moses that was rendered obsolete by Christ's atoning death.
Some of these interpretations can be debated, but al least they might stimulate civil discussion on the relevance of the Bible to this controversial issue.
Without going into details, that is not what 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about. If a person accepts the Bible as inspired by God, he does not water down it's clear message, IMO.
The Scriptures describe the love between David and Johnathan as intense friendship. They did not kiss passionately.
Your reasoning in points 5,7,and 8 are special pleading, in my opinion, without scriptural support. I do believe homosexuals should be treated kindly and compassionately, as should everyone else. But I believe the Scriptures make it clear that to please God, we must put such practices away. (1 Corinthians 6-11)
I never said it was, I said that it appears to unless you 'go into details.' What is 'watered down' is largely a matter of opinion and subject interpretive error. For example the six day literal creation event and subsequent 6k year YEC model is patently ridiculous and rejected by the vast majority of Christians world wide, and an even larger majority of Jews world wide. Some (mostly American) Christians would say the rest are 'watering down a clear message,' and those Christians would probably reply that they're oversimplifying things and not giving the scripture the due diligence it deserves. Many Jews and Christians say the same about the conservative bent against homosexuality.
Last edited: