Leviticus and Homosexuality

[Sonofason]

You clearly don't know how evolution works do you?

It's impossible to draw a line.

What exactly does my this statement of mine have to do with the theory of evolution?

Or are you rather speaking to the evolution of the Universe? Please be specific.

 

[sojourner]

Under certain conditions, yes.

Slavery is morally reprehensible and ethically irresponsible.

 

[sojourner]

He is an atheist.

Now who's lying?

I'm anything BUT an atheist, as anyone who's spent any time here will tell you.

 

[Sonofason]

Slavery is morally reprehensible and ethically irresponsible.

Actually, it is not morally reprehensible. It can be morally responsible under certain conditions.

 

[Sonofason]

Now who's lying?

I'm anything BUT an atheist, as anyone who's spent any time here will tell you.

Your credentials are worthless to me. But if they make you feel better, then that's great.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, it is not morally reprehensible. It can be morally responsible under certain conditions.

Buying, selling, and owning human beings is morally reprehensible and ethically irresponsible.

 

[sojourner]

Your credentials are worthless to me. But if they make you feel better, then that's great.

Apparently, so are individuals' sovereignty...

 

[Sonofason]

Apparently, so are individuals' sovereignty...

A human being can be justified to give up his own sovereignty.

 

[Sonofason]

If you're not reading the texts in Hebrew and Greek, you're reading what someone else says the texts say. My point stands. You're not reading the texts.

I am quite confident in the texts that I read. Those who translate the texts are doing their best to convey the truth with regard to the original texts. Those who have transcribed the original texts were doing their best to copy what was written. And I trust God to give me understanding. And God gives me understanding. Or I'm delusional, which is certainly a possibility.

 

[Sonofason]

Buying, selling, and owning human beings is morally reprehensible and ethically irresponsible.

Sure, it can be, but not necessarily so.

 

[columbus]

Sure, it can be, but not necessarily so.

Another few years and the Christians who used to oppose civil equality for gay people will be as much of an embarrassment to their children as the ones who support slavery.

I'm happy that Christians are getting over the idea that their Scripture is from God. Now we need to work on the Muslims.

Tom

 

[sojourner]

I am quite confident in the texts that I read. Those who translate the texts are doing their best to convey the truth with regard to the original texts. Those who have transcribed the original texts were doing their best to copy what was written. And I trust God to give me understanding. And God gives me understanding. Or I'm delusional, which is certainly a possibility.

Getting back on topic:
You assert that you don't know your position is correct, or why you believe that homosexuality is sinful:

I am not prepared to give an answer here as I am not very certain that my position is correct. I am inclined to believe what I believe. I don't know the source of this inclination. Perhaps it comes from observing nature, I don't know.

Then, you turn around and state:

But instead of admitting that homosexuality is sin, as the Word of God proclaims ...

So we're left with a discrepancy, which indicates some kind of dishonesty, either by design or by default is going on here.
Let's pair that with this:

slavery itself is okay.

in conjunction with this:

Your credentials are worthless to me.

and this:

I cannot condone either for the sake of greater "connectedness" with the world around me. Such connectedness serves me no purpose.

What we can glean from this is that you have very little respect for your fellow human beings (at least the ones who happen to disagree with your convictions.
Then there's the fundamental fallaciousness as evidenced by your moving the goal posts on how you treat the texts upon which you seem to feel OK with throwing people under the bus:

Well, I read my Bible of course, and I believe it.

Perhaps your perspective of God has shifted, but mine has not.

Perhaps rather than listening to what people say the Bible says, you let the Bible speak for itself.

The Bible is quite clear. Your personal elaborations are worthless. There are no reliable extra biblical teachings on the texts.

I said:

Do you read the texts in Hebrew and Greek?

You responded:

I study the Greek and the Hebrew texts as well, yes.

I did not say I can read Hebrew and Greek.

To which I responded:
"If you're not reading the texts in Hebrew and Greek, you're reading what somebody else says the texts say."
You respond above, with:

I am quite confident in the texts that I read. Those who translate the texts are doing their best to convey the truth with regard to the original texts. Those who have transcribed the original texts were doing their best to copy what was written.

So, which is it? Ae we to trust what someone else says, or aren't we?

I can only conclude from this that:
1) you don't care enough about others to give them the benefit of the doubt, unless they agree with you
2) you don't care enough about the texts to be consistent in your treatment of them
3) yet you base your judgment of the acceptability of others upon them.
4) you're "right" because you believe you're "right."

Cliff's Notes version:
You hold baseless discriminatory views which you claim are "biblical" and don't care that those views serve to harm others, because your views are the most important factor.

All this hubris, and yet you're woefully ignorant on the subject, to wit:

People who are not homosexuals do not engage in homosexual conduct. Those who do engage in homosexual conduct are homosexuals. These two words are directly linked.

The texts do define the conduct that we now call homosexual conduct. Without homosexuals, there could be no homosexuality.

Fact is, people who are not homosexual certainly do engage in homosexual conduct. Not all those who engage in homosexual conduct identify as homosexual. The texts define conduct to the best of their cultural and intellectual biases. Those biases no longer apply.

 

[firedragon]

Another few years and the Christians who used to oppose civil equality for gay people will be as much of an embarrassment to their children as the ones who support slavery.

I'm happy that Christians are getting over the idea that their Scripture is from God. Now we need to work on the Muslims.

Tom

A task indeed.

 

[Serenity7855]

SO then why did God allow for all nearly all mammalian species to have homosexual tendencies? Seems like he allowed this universe to make homosexuality flourish.

You sure make God sound petty if he cares about something as unimportant as who you have sex with.

"Please explain what existed directly after the Big Bang,"

Well how do you define directly after? A planck second? A nano second? A microsecond? Time was probably coming into existence directly after the big bang, whatever directly means.

Right, so there are homosexuals in the animal Kingdom are there. Animals are having long term relationships with other animals of the same sex. Nothing to do with their lack of intelligence or poor eyesight. I guess if the animals have told this new found fact you should be able to find a article that shows long term relationships in animals. Did you know that lions will eat their own young. Does that mean that we should act like animals here as well and eat our babies? You have been brainwashed by anti-theists

 

[columbus]

A task indeed.

No kidding. They're so busy banking petrodollars, demonstrating against Danish cartoonists, and blowing up markets one can't expect them to consider their moral foundations.

There are only so many hours in a day.

Tom

 

[sojourner]

Right, so there are homosexuals in the animal Kingdom are there. Animals are having long term relationships with other animals of the same sex. Nothing to do with their lack of intelligence or poor eyesight. I guess if the animals have told this new found fact you should be able to find a article that shows long term relationships in animals. Did you know that lions will eat their own young. Does that mean that we should act like animals here as well and eat our babies? You have been brainwashed by anti-theists

This isn't about actions. It's about orientation. This is the entire biblical problem we're dealing with. The bible simply does not address the issue of orientation, so it's wrong to say "the bible condemns homosexuality."

 

[Serenity7855]

For that to be true you would have to say that the god of the New Testemant was identical to the monster of the old testement. christians state that god did change between the OT and the NT and the bible seems to back this up.

No, but the law under which they lived changed in the beatitudes. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled and the Abrahamic covenant was introduced. No more were you responsible to the law for your sins you became accountable to God. I would say that is a pretty big change, wouldn't you. Oh, the bible most certainly does not back it up. It is the bible that informs us of the change and tells us that God is the same today, tomorrow and forever.

Whatever is good and perfect comes to us from God above, who created all heaven's lights. Unlike them, He never changes or casts shifting shadows" (James 1:17).

 

[Serenity7855]

This isn't about actions. It's about orientation. This is the entire biblical problem we're dealing with. The bible simply does not address the issue of orientation, so it's wrong to say "the bible condemns homosexuality."

Yes it is wrong but I know of no other term that is not hard on the ears. The Bible condemns sexual perversions.

 

[firedragon]

No kidding. They're so busy banking petrodollars, demonstrating against Danish cartoonists, and blowing up markets one can't expect them to consider their moral foundations.

There are only so many hours in a day.

Tom

For saying that I think you are ignorant from brain to nail.

 

[Skwim]

Right, so there are homosexuals in the animal Kingdom are there.

Besides humans? Yup. (See quoted material below.)

Animals are having long term relationships with other animals of the same sex.

Besides humans? Yup. (See quoted material below.)

Nothing to do with their lack of intelligence or poor eyesight

None that's known. But are you suggesting that only poor-sighted and unintelligent humans are homosexuals?

I guess if the animals have told this new found fact you should be able to find a article that shows long term relationships in animals.

Care to rephrase this into an intelligible statement?

Did you know that lions will eat their own young.

No I didn't. While filial cannibalism, which is what you're talking about, does occur in some animal species, I believe infanticide is as far as lions take it. But, in as much as you know that lions practice filial cannibalism how about sharing your source of information? Doubting Thomases would like to know.

Does that mean that we should act like animals here as well and eat our babies? You have been brainwashed by anti-theists

Just as you haven't been brainwashed by your religious needs.



"QUOTED MATERIAL BELOW"↓

"One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries)."About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."
Source:Wikipedia⇒
Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective By Aldo Poiani, A. F. Dixson, Aldo Poiani, A. F. Dixson, p. 179, 2010, Cambridge University Press
AND
Levay, Simon (2011). Gay, Straight, and The Reason Why The Science of Sexual Orientation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Oxford University Press. pp. 70–71.​