Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Albright is outdated, his own students refuted a lot of his ideas decades ago

The refutations you speak was from some of his students, and they continue to be dedbated

 

[shmogie]

Yes? I understand that.

I dont understand what you mean in reference to my post...are you agree? disagreeing?

No, I agree totally, apparently my response to your questioner went the wrong place ! She asked you to prove that the Bible considered homosexual acts as lust, thus my observation

 

[Shad]

The refutations you speak was from some of his students, and they continue to be dedbated

Actually it isn't being debate in any serious manner. The theological inclined archaeologists operate in a vacuum like state while modern archaeology has moved on into anthropology. They only make a noise but produce nothing of merit but merely repeating old ideas again and again.

 

[shmogie]

First, "impeached" is not a suitable word to use in this context, as it deals with laws and politicians. Second, the scientific method and academia are based on accepting evidence that has shown to be valid while rejecting hypotheses that are shown to be invalid.

What is interesting is that you are shown evidence, yet keep asking for the evidence you are presented with.

Lust is an emotion of sexual desire. Though having some of it is healthy in any romantic relationship, it is not necessary for sex.

It is possible, but the links with genetics and biochemistry have been firmly established.

Sometimes. Sometimes they just have no interests in it.

Impeached is the correct word. The gist of the conversation flew right over your head. The person with whom I was discussing evidence put an artificial timeline on it's acceptance, we weren't discussing the method of evaluating evidence. Have you, or anyone else, posted a cause(s) of homosexuality that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it is present in human's ? No, you have not

 

[shmogie]

Actually it isn't being debate in any serious manner. The theological inclined archaeologists operate in a vacuum like state while modern archaeology has moved on into anthropology. They only make a noise but produce nothing of merit but merely repeating old ideas again and again.

opinions are things that we are all entitled to have, this is one of yours

 

[Shad]

opinions are things that we are all entitled to have, this is one of yours

No it isn't considering a number of Albright's theories are no longer taught at all. That isn't an opinion that a consensus. His ideas on Jericho for example are no longer accepted.

 

[shmogie]

I don't know about the "lust" issue.
I have a life partner (female) and we have sex but I don't see our sexual
appetite as lust.
Lust = Lust is an altered state of consciousness programmed by the primal urge to procreate. Studies suggest that the brain in this phase is much like a brain on drugs.

Lust isn't a normal sexual drive or attraction. Lust takes over the brain much like
the addicts desire for narcotic drugs.
I love sex but I am not lustful.

The discussion was about the Biblical reason why homosexuality is considered lust

 

[leibowde84]

Really ? We were talking about appearance, So then a male who identifies as a female doesn't produce testosterone and the brain chemicals are different. Then, if you can prove this, for all cases, then you have found that elusive cause of homosexuality ! So, why not take that born male, designed as a male, and give him hormones and meds that alter brain chemicals and help him to be what he was born as ? A happy male in a males body, not an alleged female in a males body.

Because, obviously it should be up to the individual to choose which option works best for them. Judging them on such issues is tantamount to abuse, imho.

 

[shmogie]

No it isn't considering a number of Albright's theories are no longer taught at all. That isn't an opinion that a consensus.

A number of his theories are taught as well.

 

[Shad]

A number of his theories are taught as well.

Yes namely his work ceramics not his ideas that archaeology validates the Bible as per tradition states

 

[shmogie]

Yes namely his work ceramics not his ideas that archaeology validates the Bible as per tradition states

Wrong, as an example Look at his writings re qumran.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Impeached is the correct word.

"Impeach" deals with laws and bringing formal charges against politicians.

verb (used with object)

1.
to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

2.
Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of:
to impeach a witness.

3.
to bring an accusation against.

4.
to call in question; cast an imputation upon:
to impeach a person's motives.

5.
to call to account.


noun
1.
the impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal.
2.
(in Congress or a state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house.
3.
demonstration that a witness is less worthy of belief.
4.
the act of impeaching.
5.
the state of being impeached.

The term wasn't used correctly. And if you notice "Chiefly law," that means the word is used with law, and if you aren't using in relation to law, there are automatically better and more suitable words to use.

Have you, or anyone else, posted a cause(s) of homosexuality that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it is present in human's ? No, you have not

We have linked to a ton of evidene, a ton of studies, but yet you still insist we haven't. The most obvious answer to why homosexuality happens is humans is nothing more than just a basic observation in that we see homosexual behavior throughout the entire animal kingdom. It's just something that is.

 

[shmogie]

"Impeach" deals with laws and bringing formal charges against politicians.

The term wasn't used correctly. And if you notice "Chiefly law," that means the word is used with law, and if you aren't using in relation to law, there are automatically better and more suitable words to use.

We have linked to a ton of evidene, a ton of studies, but yet you still insist we haven't. The most obvious answer to why homosexuality happens is humans is nothing more than just a basic observation in that we see homosexual behavior throughout the entire animal kingdom. It's just something that is.

CHIEFLY law, not exclusively law. No better word for me to use, so, over your strident picky protests, I will keep using it. Citing animal behavior as a reason for human behavior is nonsense. You have listed "tons" of evidence............................ then, you have proven why homosexuality exists in humans ? A simple yes or no will do

 

[shmogie]

Because, obviously it should be up to the individual to choose which option works best for them. Judging them on such issues is tantamount to abuse, imho.

Abuse, no, wrong, yes. Unless it relates to the very narrow issue of church membership. In America the freedom of association is a fundamental right

 

[Ingledsva]

You are completely missing my points. You dont need to bold it. I read all your posts. I will try to make these two or three sentences or less.

Wrap Up

EDIT: You wrote:

Same sex marriage isn't discussed, or condemned, in the Bible.
My point: According to the Bible, that still doesnt make same-sex marriage right.

ING - Nor does it make it wrong. - And Christians should not be using what ISN'T in the Bible, against Gay people.

Nor does the Bible tell us that only male-female marriages are allowed.
My point: Scripture says marriage is between male and female (by scripture and by culture).
Why would you assume otherwise?

ING - Again - It doesn't actually say that. It talks about heterosexual marriage. But that's it. It does NOT say marriage is only between male and female. In fact if you look at the actual language in some of those male-female texts, it is actually telling us male and female are needed for procreation, and don't discuss "marriage" at all.

Thus they cannot use the Bible to condemn same-sex marriage.
My point: According to scripture, that doesnt make it right.

ING - If the Bible doesn't say it, - then Christians are liars when using it, and saying it does.

And they knew this was also going on in the cultures around them that they interacted with. So why didn't they actually condemn it? We know some Roman Emperors married men, so obviously they could do that there.
My Point: Since it is not in the Bible, why would you consider it okay just because the Romans did it? In scripture, it emphasis marriage is between male and female. Why would you assume otherwise all because it was practiced in history and never mentioned in scripture?

ING - I didn't say it was OK because other cultures did it. I was pointing out that it was normal in cultures they interacted with, and they obviously aren't shy about condemning other culture's practices. And we know the Hebrew also had homosexual people, - SO WHY - if they were actually against homosexuals and same-sex marriage - was IT NOT WRITTEN in their LAWS, or verses???

Where in the Bible does it actually say same-sex coupling is lust? It doesn't.
My point: Protitution is a form of lust. Many men and women were protituting and so forth among each other both homo and heterosexal sex. Look at context. It doesnt say it point blank. Whats your point?

ING - It doesn't say it. Also, not positive, but as far as I know, the only prostitution mentioned in the Bible is Sacred Sex Prostitution, which is IDOLATRY.

And again - if they actually were against any other marriage arrangement, - they would have written that in the Bible. They did not.
My point: According to scripture, that doesnt make it right. Dont know why they didnt mention it; has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.

ING - Again - if the Bible doesn't say it, - then Christians that say it does, and then use such against homosexuals, or same-sex marriage, - are liars. They can THINK whatever they want. But can't claim it is God's Law in the Bible, (as it isn't there,) as the source for their no same-sex marriage homophobia.

It talks about heterosexual marriage, - but does NOT "specifically state" that marriage is only between male and female.
My point: According to scripture, it doesnt make same-sex marriage right just absent in scripture.

ING - Nor can you say it is wrong if it doesn't say that in the Bible.

Why is this hard to understand--not agree with--but understand?

ING - I'm not going to give any kind of "understanding" to homophobes, - which try to use Bible verses to condone their attacks on homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, - when the Bible doesn't even say such.

*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

ING - I'm not going to give any kind of "understanding" to homophobes, - which try to use Bible verses to condone their attacks on homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, - when the Bible doesn't even say such.

*

The Bible does not say and that does not make if right.

I read your posts. Please use black or unbolded red

 

[shmogie]

ING - I'm not going to give any kind of "understanding" to homophobes, - which try to use Bible verses to condone their attacks on homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, - when the Bible doesn't even say such.

*

A phobia is an unreasonable fear, I know nobody who is afraid of homosexuals, but believe it isn't a Christian practice, therefore, they cannot be "homophobes". The Bible says EXACTLY that............................................get used to it. You can pretend till you are dead, but it's all in your head.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A phobia is an unreasonable fear, I know nobody who is afraid of homosexuals, but believe it isn't a Christian practice, therefore, they cannot be "homophobes". The Bible says EXACTLY that............................................get used to it. You can pretend till you are dead, but it's all in your head.

Even according to the lesser dictionary of Merriam-Webster the definition of homophobia is not only fear, but also the aversion towards or discrimination against homosexuals and homosexuality. You have stated you have an aversion towards homosexuals, thus you are a homophobe.

 

[Ingledsva]

The universal, historical view of marriage through all cultures and civilizations has been between...male and female, whether monogamy or polygamy. That was the claim....historically marriage=male and female. I was not discussing a "form" of marriage, such as polygamy or monogamy in the post you quoted, rather the "who" of marriage which has always been throughout history and all cultures male and female. Do you understand what I'm saying?

This is false.

It was understood that male and female were needed for procreation - but we have evidence from around the world, - of ancient same-sex marriage.

Here are a few.

According to the midrash Sifra, traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hiyya, a bit after 200 CE, the Egyptians and Canaanites had same sex marriage.

There are also pictures of same sex couples in ancient Egyptian wall art.

We know that ancient Chinese men and women married same-sex..

Same with some tribes in countries in Africa - right up to today.

Both North American and South American tribes had same-sex marriage, - some to this day.

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex marriages. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And though Christians today are trying to claim these aren't marriages -

"A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova." - Carlos Callón. "Callón gaña o Vicente Risco de Ciencias Sociais cun ensaio sobre a homosexualidade na Idade Media"

"At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality."

*

 

[Ingledsva]

A phobia is an unreasonable fear, I know nobody who is afraid of homosexuals, but believe it isn't a Christian practice, therefore, they cannot be "homophobes". The Bible says EXACTLY that............................................get used to it. You can pretend till you are dead, but it's all in your head.

LOL! And I'll say it again - PROVE IT!

The Bible does not say no same-sex marriage. Nor even that such is wrong. Nor does it say male-female marriage is the only marriage.

It doesn't even actually say homosexuality is wrong - as shown.

*