Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I personally am under no obligation to adhere to the civil laws of Iran.

Agreed. BUT -- you would be if you went there, would you not? And so when the Israelites dropped in on Canaan, whose law prevailed?

Please cite the verse or verses in the Bible which states that the Israelite's raped anyone. I am not so sure you will find one. My guess is that you will read something into the text that isn't there. But humor me, and cite the verses. If I am wrong, I will admit it. However, even if some of those Israeli soldiers did rape someone it makes them no better or worse than the soldiers who fight wars in countries all over this planet. People do not do what is right. But please also show me the verses where God condones such conduct.

Excuse me, but this is simply willfully disingenuous. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and uttering nonsense syllables until someone telling you what you don't want to hear gives up and goes away.

NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Okay, give me your top 5 reasons to save only the females, and only the virgins? Better workers? Stronger? Smarter? And you might also try to tell me how those Israelites could know which were the virgins and which weren't without some sort of "examination." And what, really, at the end of the day, in a pretty heterosexual culture is meant by "save for yourselves every girl..." Heck, boys could be pretty satisfying, too, you know?

Ad hoc, pick and choose, accept what you want to read, ignore the rest (like the Bible is some sort of smorgasbord, which as far as I can tell, for most Christians it really is).

I prefer honesty, myself. I've never found a lot of it in those who tout their religion with faith but without reason.

Maybe one day you could ask Him.

Why "one day?" Is it not written: "ask and it shall be answered?" I've asked a billion times. Answers? None yet (well, except yours, but I don't think you're God -- you wouldn't need the internet if you were.)

No one deserves life. It is a privilege, not a right, kinda like driving a car. This is just my opinion by the way.

And one you feel good about? And if you can state that "no one deserves life," do you also feel justified in likewise saying "everyone (or no one) deserves death?" And when?

Yeah, it seems a little harsh to me too. Perhaps we don't have the full story. It is possible that promises were made to God that weren't kept. I honestly don't know. I do believe that I will reserve any judgment against God until I at least get some more information regarding the matter.

Well, just use yourself as the template. If your son makes a promise to you, and then breaks it, do you shoot him in the face? And how do you pit that against the reactions of "[y]our father who art in heaven?"

It is possible the angel had more pressing matters to deal with. I really don't know.

Of course you don't! But I give you this to think about -- angels, being themselves manifestations of God, have no relationship to time, and therefore "pressing" is a complete dodge.

Let me give you some advice. Don't boff someone else's wife. It rarely ends well.

While that may be true, I have two issues with it: first, I'm more likely to boff someone else's husband (hey, I'm that way), but second, if it doesn't end well, I would expect it to not end well for me -- not for an innocent child! Why is it you Christians cannot simply and directly answer simple and direct questions? Embarrassment about your "God?"

That's fine, I'm okay with being a backboard. Take as many shots as you like.

I'm not "taking shots." I'm grappling with deeply human, existential, religious and philosophical problems. If that sort of thing hurts, you probably shouldn't be involved.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't know about you, but I don't need god, Jesus, or the Bible to forgive. In all honesty, I got much better at that only after I quit being Christian.

Yes, lots of people believe as you do. But I disagree.

 

[Sonofason]

Well, that's monstrous.

I had said:

I'll put it this way. Such children probably deserve to die. This must have been very difficult for parents to deal with. Surely, they would have had some sense of love for their children, and putting such a child to death, even when they deserve it, must have been hard. Thank God for Christ who taught us that it is good to forgive. The law serves it purpose. It exposes truths about people however difficult they may be to face. But we can forgive people who deserve less, and we surely ought to.

You can think what ever you want. I remember, years ago, when I was growing up, going to school. I was on the school bus and we were stopping at another bus stop in my neighborhood. And there, at the bus stop, there was this kid, a creep, a kid I had known for a long time who deserved to die...but there he was beating the hell out of this quiet weak homosexual at the bus stop. He was punching him and kicking him in the face. No one did anything about it. Years later, that kid took an ax and murdered his own mother and one of his sister's daughters. They were twins. He's in jail now, but he should be dead. He should have been dead for a long time, and lives would have been saved, good lives. But that creep lives, and people like you are content with that.

I'm glad you live in a place where the law is more moral than you or your scriptures are. I also wonder what you had to do to your kids to make them "obey every word you say," as you put it.

Well, sadly what you said is just an opinion of yours. The truth is you can find no morality that is greater than that which is found in the Bible. If you do what the Bible says with regard to raising children, and if you are obedient to God, you can't go wrong.

Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go;
Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

Another thing I do on a pretty regular basis is pray for my children.

Personally, I don't think anyone who believes that children deserve to die for disobedience is fit to be a parent.

There are many levels to disobedience. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't recognize that isn't fit to be a parent.

I really hope this is all just religious puffery on your part, and that you're just trying to put up a front that agrees with your so-called holy book.

It doesn't really matter to me what you hope for. Your hopes are pretty much irrelevant to me, and to this discussion for that matter.

 

[Sonofason]

Agreed. BUT -- you would be if you went there, would you not? And so when the Israelites dropped in on Canaan, whose law prevailed?

Excuse me, but this is simply willfully disingenuous. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and uttering nonsense syllables until someone telling you what you don't want to hear gives up and goes away.

NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Okay, give me your top 5 reasons to save only the females, and only the virgins? Better workers? Stronger? Smarter? And you might also try to tell me how those Israelites could know which were the virgins and which weren't without some sort of "examination." And what, really, at the end of the day, in a pretty heterosexual culture is meant by "save for yourselves every girl..." Heck, boys could be pretty satisfying, too, you know?

Ad hoc, pick and choose, accept what you want to read, ignore the rest (like the Bible is some sort of smorgasbord, which as far as I can tell, for most Christians it really is).

I prefer honesty, myself. I've never found a lot of it in those who tout their religion with faith but without reason.

Why "one day?" Is it not written: "ask and it shall be answered?" I've asked a billion times. Answers? None yet (well, except yours, but I don't think you're God -- you wouldn't need the internet if you were.)

And one you feel good about? And if you can state that "no one deserves life," do you also feel justified in likewise saying "everyone (or no one) deserves death?" And when?

Well, just use yourself as the template. If your son makes a promise to you, and then breaks it, do you shoot him in the face? And how do you pit that against the reactions of "[y]our father who art in heaven?"

Of course you don't! But I give you this to think about -- angels, being themselves manifestations of God, have no relationship to time, and therefore "pressing" is a complete dodge.

While that may be true, I have two issues with it: first, I'm more likely to boff someone else's husband (hey, I'm that way), but second, if it doesn't end well, I would expect it to not end well for me -- not for an innocent child! Why is it you Christians cannot simply and directly answer simple and direct questions? Embarrassment about your "God?"

I'm not "taking shots." I'm grappling with deeply human, existential, religious and philosophical problems. If that sort of thing hurts, you probably shouldn't be involved.

I asked for Biblical evidence of rape, and you failed to show it. You can insert words and ideas into the Bible if you want, but I believe that is quite disingenuous. Not killing virgins is not rape.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, lots of people believe as you do. But I disagree.

You can disagree, but factually speaking when I was a Christian was when I was the worst at that "forgive and forget" thing.

 

[Sonofason]

You can disagree, but factually speaking when I was a Christian was when I was the worst at that "forgive and forget" thing.

You could not have been a Christian unless you were forgiving others. A Christian is a follower of Christ. If you are not obeying Christ, then you are not a follower of Christ. If you are not a follower of Christ, you are not a Christian.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I asked for Biblical evidence of rape, and you failed to show it. You can insert words and ideas into the Bible if you want, but I believe that is quite disingenuous. Not killing virgins is not rape.

Fine, you can insist that keeping only virgin females (and not other females, and not males) was only for washing dishes and doing the laundry, and they remained untouched. Except, males can do some pretty hard work, and females that are no longer virgins are often no slouches themselves.

You are trying desperately to forget everything you know about human nature in order to make what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS innocent. To those of us who have lived a little, however, your attempt looks pretty inane.

 

[Sonofason]

Fine, you can insist that keeping only virgin females (and not other females, and not males) was only for washing dishes and doing the laundry, and they remained untouched. Except, males can do some pretty hard work, and females that are no longer virgins are often no slouches themselves.

You are trying desperately to forget everything you know about human nature in order to make what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS innocent. To those of us who have lived a little, however, your attempt looks pretty inane.

I'm doing what I can to forget about the human nature that you seem to be ascribing to. It is not human nature to commit rape. It is a debauched nature to even think such foolishness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You could not have been a Christian unless you were forgiving others. A Christian is a follower of Christ. If you are not obeying Christ, then you are not a follower of Christ. If you are not a follower of Christ, you are not a Christian.

I clarify since you seemed to have gotten the tenses and such confused: I was a Christian, and then I wasn't so good at the forgiving and forgetting - not that I wasn't then it just becomes so much easier to do, as does philosophies such as "live and let live," when the world was no longer viewed as an affront to god. And it doesn't help that Conservative Christians do tend to view themselves as the moral high-points in the world, and everything else is an offense to god.

It is not human nature to commit rape. It is a debauched nature to even think such foolishness.

Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, 21, and 22, Exodus 21, the Bible is filled with examples of rape and sex slavery being commanded. Not unless you want to be naive and pretend these girls were kept for other reasons.

 

[Sonofason]

I clarify since you seemed to have gotten the tenses and such confused: I was a Christian, and then I wasn't so good at the forgiving and forgetting - not that I wasn't then it just becomes so much easier to do, as does philosophies such as "live and let live," when the world was no longer viewed as an affront to god. And it doesn't help that Conservative Christians do tend to view themselves as the moral high-points in the world, and everything else is an offense to god.

Well, apparently my previous response was based on a correct understanding of the tenses you now are referring to. It is interesting that when I am most mindful of my Christianity, I tend to be more forgiving. To be unforgiving is not a sign of a person who is following Christ, and therefore not likely someone I'd consider very Christian. Perhaps you weren't a very good Christian.

Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, 21, and 22, Exodus 21, the Bible is filled with examples of rape and sex slavery being commanded. Not unless you want to be naive and pretend these girls were kept for other reasons.

Apparently I am naive. Personally, I try not to put words in the mouths of others. If they don't say it, I tend not to infer it, especially when there is actually no evidence from which to infer what you have apparently taken the liberty to infer. But if you can find me any explicit statements from the Bible where God's chosen people were commanded to commit rape. I'd really like to see that. Best of luck.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, apparently my previous response was based on a correct understanding of the tenses you now are referring to. It is interesting that when I am most mindful of my Christianity, I tend to be more forgiving. To be unforgiving is not a sign of a person who is following Christ, and therefore not likely someone I'd consider very Christian. Perhaps you weren't a very good Christian.

That's rather presumptuous of you to judge.

Apparently I am naive. Personally, I try not to put words in the mouths of others. If they don't say it, I tend not to infer it, especially when there is actually no evidence from which to infer what you have apparently taken the liberty to infer. But if you can find me any explicit statements from the Bible where God's chosen people were commanded to commit rape. I'd really like to see that. Best of luck.

So, in other words, you are naive and wish to see something other than what was going on.

 

[Sonofason]

That's rather presumptuous of you to judge.

So, in other words, you are naive and wish to see something other than what was going on.

No, I am not so presumptive to assume that something was going on beyond that which is stated to have been going on.

Now, Please provide the quote where God's chosen people were commanded to commit rape.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I am not so presumptive to assume that something was going on beyond that which is stated to have been going on.

You're not just assuming there is more going on, you automatically judged me that I must not have been a good Christian. It's also just as likely I was 16 when I left the church, and just didn't know any better.

Now, Please provide the quote where God's chosen people were commanded to commit rape.

I gave them to you. What honestly do you think keeping the women for themselves implies? When the women are considered a part of the spoils of war, it doesn't mean they are taking them in to play the chivalrous knight in shining armor.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm doing what I can to forget about the human nature that you seem to be ascribing to. It is not human nature to commit rape. It is a debauched nature to even think such foolishness.

Well, there's no question that willful ignorance is a thing. So why don't you offer up an explanation for these simple two verses from Numbers 31

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Be sure, in your explanation, to explain why it was important that only the females were to be spared -- and ONLY if they had not already been tupped (that's Shakespeare's Othello for the censorious among us). It is a point that is very specifically and clearly set out -- and therefore there must be a reason. I want to know what you think that reason was. While you're thinking about it, by the way, and while you insist at "rape is not human nature," you might also consider Boka Haram and the girls from Chibok. There were 276 of them, and I can give you lots of other examples, if you'd like.

You might further explain why you would not be at all concerned if a gaggle of Catholic priests at a day camp sent all the parents and daughters home, and said "just leave the boys with us."

You might not want to think about human nature, but it is what it is, and it does not bode well for anyone to forget it. I would certainly not leave my son (if I had one) to those priests. And trust me, I do know whereof I speak.

 

[Sonofason]

You're not just assuming there is more going on, you automatically judged me that I must not have been a good Christian. It's also just as likely I was 16 when I left the church, and just didn't know any better.

I gave them to you. What honestly do you think keeping the women for themselves implies? When the women are considered a part of the spoils of war, it doesn't mean they are taking them in to play the chivalrous knight in shining armor.

It is very likely that women were very important commodities in those days. I believe they kept the virgins in order that they might become wives. It could be that they were kept so that they could simply rape them. But there were laws against rape, and I do not believe they were kept just to be raped. You know that a dog can't rape another dog? Do you know that monkeys cannot rape other monkeys? Rape is defined as unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent. In those days, it was not unlawful to force yourself upon a woman. But if you did, you had to marry her. But if you want to call it rape, then I suppose I could call abortion 1st degree murder.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is very likely that women were very important commodities in those days. I believe they kept the virgins in order that they might become wives. It could be that they were kept so that they could simply rape them. But there were laws against rape, and I do not believe they were kept just to be raped. You know that a dog can't rape another dog? Do you know that monkeys cannot rape other monkeys? Rape is defined as unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent. In those days, it was not unlawful to force yourself upon a woman. But if you did, you had to marry her. But if you want to call it rape, then I suppose I could call abortion 1st degree murder.

To me, it sounds like you are really reaching, trying desperately to salvage some sort of pure innocence in the Bible. And to me, that innocence is simply not there, if you read the actual words written on the pages, rather than filtering them through the wish-filters of your religious viewpoint.

I had not know, for example, that non-virgins could not become wives. Is that a fact? Only virgins can become wives? (That's going to come as a little bit of bad news to a lot of people on their second marriage!)

As to the "laws against rape," if you have really read the Bible, you know that all of the laws specified in the OT refer to Israel only. Think carefully for a moment now -- the Jews had laws against murder, too -- and yet felt perfectly justified in killing all of the non-virgin women and ALL OF THE MALES including children. So, what do you make of their "law against murder?" It can ONLY POSSIBLY mean that it did not apply to those who weren't part of the community, that you could kill them with impunity (as he waxes poetic).

You see, I just read the words in the book. I don't have the biased viewpoint that tries to make everything Pollyanna goody-goody. It says what it says, and means it.

 

[Sonofason]

To me, it sounds like you are really reaching, trying desperately to salvage some sort of pure innocence in the Bible. And to me, that innocence is simply not there, if you read the actual words written on the pages, rather than filtering them through the wish-filters of your religious viewpoint.

I had not know, for example, that non-virgins could not become wives. Is that a fact? Only virgins can become wives? (That's going to come as a little bit of bad news to a lot of people on their second marriage!)

As to the "laws against rape," if you have really read the Bible, you know that all of the laws specified in the OT refer to Israel only. Think carefully for a moment now -- the Jews had laws against murder, too -- and yet felt perfectly justified in killing all of the non-virgin women and ALL OF THE MALES including children. So, what do you make of their "law against murder?" It can ONLY POSSIBLY mean that it did not apply to those who weren't part of the community, that you could kill them with impunity (as he waxes poetic).

You see, I just read the words in the book. I don't have the biased viewpoint that tries to make everything Pollyanna goody-goody. It says what it says, and means it.

Not so, it is you who is not actually reading the words written on the pages. You are adding stuff to what is written, based on your own understanding of your own nature.

No one really wants a whore for a wife. But since there are so many these days, many are settling for second hand females. It goes both ways.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one really wants a whore for a wife. But since there are so many these days, many are settling for second hand females. It goes both ways.

Well! That was a teensy bit "holier-than-thou," wasn't it? A woman in a second marriage, now defined by Sonofason as a "whore" and a "second hand female."

I often wonder, actually, whether Jesus can actually get into the hearts of people whose hearts are already filled with hate (whether they know it or not). My own suspicion doesn't bode well for a lot of the Christians that I've known and heard from over my life.

 

[Sonofason]

Well! That was a teensy bit "holier-than-thou," wasn't it? A woman in a second marriage, now defined by Sonofason as a "whore" and a "second hand female."

I often wonder, actually, whether Jesus can actually get into the hearts of people whose hearts are already filled with hate (whether they know it or not). My own suspicion doesn't bode well for a lot of the Christians that I've known and heard from over my life.

You're right...my wording was a bit harsh and possibly not well thought out. It is very possible that there exists a woman in this world who was a virgin when she entered into her first marriage. I dare you to try and find one. But if such a one could be found, I would not want to be calling her a whore. That would be wrong of me. It is very possible that such a woman exists, and her husband is either dead or was unfaithful to her, or was abusive to her, and I would think she would have every right to get a divorce and then enter into a second marriage. I would not want to be categorizing such a woman as a whore. Most women these days are actually second hand women these days, as most have had sex multiple times with multiple people before getting married. Most women these days I would consider whores.

Addendum. This is not actually the right word. There is another word that is more appropriate, but that seems overly vulgar to use on a public forum. The word I used really should be reserved for women who have sex for money. And that of course is not what we were necessarily talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rape is defined as unlawful sexual activity

No, it's actually defined as non-consensual sex. Rape is unlawful, but not all unlawful sexual activity is rape.

That would be wrong of me.

It's wrong of you to think of any woman in those regards if she refuses to let her sexuality be controlled by a system of patriarchy that shames her for owning and practicing her sexuality.