Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[sojourner]

Where is your evidence?

The fact that the archaeological record doesn't bear it out!!! There's no evidence to back the story! It means it didn't actually happen!

 

[sojourner]

What is it you want me to prove?

<sigh!>

Please look at post #508.

 

[Sonofason]

The fact that the archaeological record doesn't bear it out!!! There's no evidence to back the story! It means it didn't actually happen!

Please be specific. The archaeological record doesn't bear what out? There is no evidence to back what story exactly? Please be specific.

 

[Sonofason]

<sigh!>

Please look at post #508.

Sorry, I already answered that post in post 513. Please pay attention.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Bible is never wrong, not on any account.

LOL! He is correct.


May I suggest you read an article in Archaeology Magazine called - Who where the Israelites.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

So you disagree with sojourner then? Got it.... Because it is INCONSISTENT to say that women were not expected to engage in honorable behavior but then to find rules that ban them from engaging in various sexually indecent acts (acts that even men were banned from doing) EXCEPT for same-sex acts. Perhaps if you let sojourner answer for his own claim for starters, that might help.

That is NOT what I said - quit trying to twist it.


Some Laws apply to ALL Israelites.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Just prove what you say. If you have evidence, show it. The fact that people debate the facts of the matter is not evidence.

LOL! You are so funny when you are losing a debate.


I gave you the names of several archaeologists that actually worked on the site.


And that was a BIBLICAL Archaeology article.

So - even the people whom want the information to be correct, - find it to be incorrect!



*

 

[McNap]

No. I'm saying that they didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation. They understood it as willful turning away from natural desires. People were not viewed as "either heterosexual or homosexual." There simply was no definition like that. They viewed people as simply "sexual," and they either expressed that sexuality "naturally" or "unnaturally."

Does that mean Romans 1:26 is about homosexuals according to you?

You think not even one ancient understood homosexuality as an orientation?

And what about ancient homosexuals themselves... how would they see themselves?

If we look at today's people we still see that some don't understand homosexuality as an orientation. I think the past problems don't differ much from todays problems.
Maybe there were a few ancients who believed in homosexuality as an orientation and they got in trouble with those who don't. Same happens today.
One can always choose to either think for himself or let the mass think for him.

 

[McNap]

Actually Romans I is talking about the Qadash and Sacred Temple Sex,

It says these people have changed the WORSHIP of YHVH, into the sexual worship of the Act of Creation.


It's pretty obvious if you read it in context, especially from Rom 1:21 down to 26 and 27, that they are talking about sexual acts in relationship to Pagan worship NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.

*

You mean NOT HOMOSEXUALS? For he IS talking about men sleeping with men and whether they are heterosexual or not, we call the act HOMOSEXUALITY.

He is talking to the people of Rome where there are a lot of Temples with Temple Prostitutes.


Rom 1:21 Because that, -- when they knew God,-- they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (mataioo is actually IDOLATROUS) in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:


~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~


Rom 1:25 -- Who -- changed the truth of Deity into a lie, -- and worship and render religious homage -- to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Yes I think it could be prostitution as well.
Prostitution could be their goal. For heretics it is pretty common to use the gospel as a tool to earn a living with.

One thing is for sure... if I start reading from verse 18 it becomes obvious that he is writing about people who know the truth. People whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known (verse 23 confirms it again).
Therefrom I conclude that he is NOT writing about faithless people, so faithless homosexuals do absolutely not fit in this picture.
As I said before; homosexuals not at all fit. Not even faithful homosexuals.

He's talking about very corrupted heterosexuals practicing homosexuality.
Verse 23: They changed the glory of the incorruptible God...
You see, to fool us they are fooling themselves first.
They are so dangerous because of their faith in God. A man who wants to do evil would be better of without faith, though he could always repent. There's always a way back to God's grace for everyone.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, I already answered that post in post 513. Please pay attention.

No. You didn't. You offered conjecture and excuses. And you didn't address the point about stiff-neckedness at all. Nor did you explain how the ancients thought the heavenly bodies were affixed to the dome and rotated around the earth. Nor have you answered the challenge about lack of archaeological evidence.

"No, not really..." doesn't constitute a valid response to any of those challenges.

 

[sojourner]

Does that mean Romans 1:26 is about homosexuals according to you?

You think not even one ancient understood homosexuality as an orientation?

And what about ancient homosexuals themselves... how would they see themselves?

If we look at today's people we still see that some don't understand homosexuality as an orientation. I think the past problems don't differ much from todays problems.
Maybe there were a few ancients who believed in homosexuality as an orientation and they got in trouble with those who don't. Same happens today.
One can always choose to either think for himself or let the mass think for him.

And therein lies one difference between us and the ancients. The ancients had much, much less of an individual mind set than we do. They were much, much more communally-oriented. That made it much more likely that they would have thought that everybody's sexuality was the same.

 

[sojourner]

Does that mean Romans 1:26 is about homosexuals according to you?

It's a pretty clear example that Paul thought homosexual acts were unnatural. Had he known about sexual orientation, he wouldn't have used the term "unnatural."

 

[McNap]

It's a pretty clear example that Paul thought homosexual acts were unnatural. Had he known about sexual orientation, he wouldn't have used the term "unnatural."

Or he did know about sexual orientation and because he was talking about heterosexuals might be why he used the term unnatural.
Still it remains strange to assume that ancient gay boys were married to girls.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That is NOT what I said - quit trying to twist it.


Some Laws apply to ALL Israelites.



*

I understand your reason but your reason doesn't explain sojourner's reasoning behind why same-sex acts aren't banned when it's between women. Let the honors student answer for himself .

 

[ScuzManiac]

If you want to keep making a play on words fine. Yes scriptures don't say anything about homosexuality, just sodomy and sodomites (everytime I say that word I think of JJ saying, Dyna-o-mite!). So, using critical thinking skills, do think that is something that does or does not almost exclusively pertain to homosexuals?

No, I don't.

There are more straight men than gay men in the world (by a long shot).

It's probably a safe bet that most men that have a girlfriend/wife....

Have oral sex. If a man is to have oral sex with his wife/girlfriend...

Why wouldn't a gay man with his boyfriend/husband?

Also, roughly 33% of women (according to multiple studies) admit to having had anal sex.

We'll play it safe and knock that down to JUST 10%.

There are around 4 billion women in the world...

That means (low balling it) that around 400 million women have tried anal sex.

So, are there 400 million gay men in the world?

No. Roughly 5% of men in the world are gay (and that's a high estimate because it was increased to account for men that MIGHT not be out of the closet). That's a lower percentage and there are more woman than men.

Finally, if only 5% (or even 20% of men are gay) that leaves an even larger percentage of men that aren't. How many of them would turn down oral sex?



I hope this is enough "critical thinking" to answer you question.

 

[ScuzManiac]

No chapter of the Bible has ever been successfully refuted by anyone. No statement found in the Bible has never been proven to be false. If you think one has been successfully refuted, you are quite mistaken.

But do humor me, and cite a verse of scripture which has been proven false by science. Show me the verse, and show me the science, if you can.

Snakes don't talk.

Bats aren't birds.

Insects don't have four legs.

Jesus wasn't/couldn't have been born in more than one place.

Should I go on?

 

[sojourner]

Or he did know about sexual orientation and because he was talking about heterosexuals might be why he used the term unnatural.
Still it remains strange to assume that ancient gay boys were married to girls.

Anything's possible, but that's not what the cultural indicators point toward.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, I don't.

There are more straight men than gay men in the world (by a long shot).

well..actually most men are bisexual. Very very few are completely gay...and lots of them are completely straight.

A gay man is a male who would never sleep with a woman...not even under torture.
I can sound intolerant, but I don't feel empathy for those men who have homosexual experiences until they turn 30, and then they become completely straight.

I think that men who are completely gay and would never sleep with a woman, live a more dignifying life.

 

[Thruve]

well..actually most men are bisexual. Very very few are completely gay...and lots of them are completely straight.

A gay man is a male who would never sleep with a woman...not even under torture.
I can sound intolerant, but I don't feel empathy for those men who have homosexual experiences until they turn 30, and then they become completely straight.

I think that men who are completely gay and would never sleep with a woman, live a more dignifying life.

lol whys that?

 

[ScuzManiac]

well..actually most men are bisexual. Very very few are completely gay...and lots of them are completely straight.

A gay man is a male who would never sleep with a woman...not even under torture.
I can sound intolerant, but I don't feel empathy for those men who have homosexual experiences until they turn 30, and then they become completely straight.

I think that men who are completely gay and would never sleep with a woman, live a more dignifying life.

You mean most men that like men are bisexual and not completely gay?

Because I definitely don't think there are more bisexual men than gay men.

And not that I disagree BUT....

What about men that have heterosexual experiences until they are 30...

And then turn 100% homosexual from there on out? Is there any difference?

:sarcastic