Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[Imaginary_Friends]

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.

If you were following the conversation you would realize we were trying to determine the scriptural intent at that time ( the time it was written).

So in Bronze Age Israel, with a lack of hygiene products, a plethora of superstitions and sexual taboos, who do you think sodomy mostly pertained too ?

Most importantly the Law we are referring to states men sodomizing men. So I don’t why you would try to play coy and state modern quantity and ignore ratio. As to imply sodomy would pertain to 10 average heterosexual men rather then 10 average homosexuals ones.

You are more then welcome to attempt “critical thinking” again.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A gay man is a male who would never sleep with a woman...not even under torture.

That says more about your personal disdain or hatred for women than it does about the realities of sexual attraction. Lots of gay men have sex with women and vice versa for lesbians. It's just not their first choice in sexual partner. Some gay people are homoflexible, in that they will have sex with a member of the opposite sex in the right circumstances but they're not interested in anything more than that.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.



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.

Absolutely not!


The Qadesh were not homosexuals.


They were trained from childhood to perform Sacred Sex acts.


A heterosexual male Qadesh that performs anal sex on another male - is still a heterosexual performing a Sacred Sex act.


Having anal sex - does not produce fairy-dust - and POOF - you become homosexual. LOL!


And by the way - the act - is called sodomy - not homosexuality.


And, - obviously a lot of - Heterosexual - men like Anal sex, - as they experiment with other males in youth, and do such with females when older.




*

 

[Sonofason]

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?

I said, "No statement found in the Bible has never been proven to be false."

And I will say again, "If you think one has been successfully refuted, you are quite mistaken."

1. The Bible never makes a claim that a snake talked. I assume you are referring to chapter 3 of Genesis which says,

"וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃"

Now I'm not a genius or anything like that, but I don't see the word snake anywhere in this sentence.

In fact the word is translated into English as serpent. While a snake can be a serpent. It is not true that all serpents are snakes. Only a snake would make such a claim.

2. The Bible was written before today's modern definitions. The Bible does not contain a statement ever calling a bat a modern day bird. It doesn't even call a bat a bird at all. I assume you are referring to Leviticus 11 verse 13 and verse 19 which say,

verse 13
וְאֶת־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ תְּשַׁקְּצ֣וּ מִן־הָעֹ֔וף לֹ֥א יֵאָכְל֖וּ שֶׁ֣קֶץ הֵ֑ם אֶת־הַנֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ וְאֶת־הַפֶּ֔רֶס וְאֵ֖ת הָעָזְנִיָּֽה׃

verse 19
וְאֵת֙ הַחֲסִידָ֔ה הָאֲנָפָ֖ה לְמִינָ֑הּ וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַ֖ת וְאֶת־הָעֲטַלֵּֽף׃

Now, from verse 13 we have the word הָע֔וֹף which when transliterated into English reads "hā-‘ō-wp̄," "which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly." The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects."
Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

I'm not sure you know this, but bats can fly. Bats may not be birds as birds are defined today, but bats are certainly הָע֔וֹף.

The writer of Leviticus did not approve of the use of the English word bird as a substitution for what he actually wrote. Nor would He.

I'm not going to prove you wrong on every count. Hopefully you are wise enough to see where this is going. If not, too bad.

 

[sojourner]

I said, "No statement found in the Bible has never been proven to be false."

And I will say again, "If you think one has been successfully refuted, you are quite mistaken."

1. The Bible never makes a claim that a snake talked. I assume you are referring to chapter 3 of Genesis which says,

"וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃"

Now I'm not a genius or anything like that, but I don't see the word snake anywhere in this sentence.

In fact the word is translated into English as serpent. While a snake can be a serpent. It is not true that all serpents are snakes. Only a snake would make such a claim.

2. The Bible was written before today's modern definitions. The Bible does not contain a statement ever calling a bat a modern day bird. It doesn't even call a bat a bird at all. I assume you are referring to Leviticus 11 verse 13 and verse 19 which say,

verse 13
וְאֶת־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ תְּשַׁקְּצ֣וּ מִן־הָעֹ֔וף לֹ֥א יֵאָכְל֖וּ שֶׁ֣קֶץ הֵ֑ם אֶת־הַנֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ וְאֶת־הַפֶּ֔רֶס וְאֵ֖ת הָעָזְנִיָּֽה׃

verse 19
וְאֵת֙ הַחֲסִידָ֔ה הָאֲנָפָ֖ה לְמִינָ֑הּ וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַ֖ת וְאֶת־הָעֲטַלֵּֽף׃

Now, from verse 13 we have the word הָע֔וֹף which when transliterated into English reads "hā-‘ō-wp̄," "which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly." The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects."
Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

I'm not sure you know this, but bats can fly. Bats may not be birds as birds are defined today, but bats are certainly הָע֔וֹף.

The writer of Leviticus did not approve of the use of the English word bird as a substitution for what he actually wrote. Nor would He.

I'm not going to prove you wrong on every count. Hopefully you are wise enough to see where this is going. If not, too bad.

Sooo... when are you going to really respond to my challenges? Been waiting quite some time, now.

Oh, and here's another one for you: Archaeologists have determined that Israel simply didn't have either the monetary or natural resources to sustain an army as large as the bible claims David's army was.

 

[Sonofason]

Sooo... when are you going to really respond to my challenges? Been waiting quite some time, now.

Oh, and here's another one for you: Archaeologists have determined that Israel simply didn't have either the monetary or natural resources to sustain an army as large as the bible claims David's army was.

You don't need money to build an army. All you need is manpower, and resources.

 

[Sonofason]

Sooo... when are you going to really respond to my challenges? Been waiting quite some time, now.

Oh, and here's another one for you: Archaeologists have determined that Israel simply didn't have either the monetary or natural resources to sustain an army as large as the bible claims David's army was.

I see you're not even going to attempt to address my post. I honestly don't blame you. You would surely fail miserably.

 

[sojourner]

You don't need money to build an army. All you need is manpower, and resources.

You didn't read what I read, did you. I included resources.

 

[sojourner]

I see you're not even going to attempt to address my post. I honestly don't blame you. You would surely fail miserably.

The question is, when are you going to really address my post?

 

[Ingledsva]

I said, "No statement found in the Bible has never been proven to be false."

And I will say again, "If you think one has been successfully refuted, you are quite mistaken."

1. The Bible never makes a claim that a snake talked. I assume you are referring to chapter 3 of Genesis which says,

"וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃"

Now I'm not a genius or anything like that, but I don't see the word snake anywhere in this sentence.

In fact the word is translated into English as serpent. While a snake can be a serpent. It is not true that all serpents are snakes. Only a snake would make such a claim.

....

Nachash comes to us by way of India and actually is snake.


Snake/serpent is Naga in India. By the time it reaches Babylon it is Nagash, and becomes Nachash in the Hebrew. All with the exact same meanings.


Both Snake and Serpent can be used in that translation, because a snake is a serpent.


Just look at some of the other uses. Gen 49:17, Psa 58:4, etc. Very obviously it is also snake.


And what would be the difference - since nothing in that category can speak.


Also - in Gen 3:1 it is probably meant to be another of the meanings - Enchanter. A play on words - as it were. A double meaning.


Gen 3:1 And the "Enchanter" (nachash/snake/serpent) was cunning above all living things of the land which YHVH Elohiym had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that Elohiym has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?


Gen 3:14 And said YHVH Elohiym to the "Enchanter" (nachash/snake/serpent,) Because you have done this, cursed are you; in the manner of dumb beasts living in the fields, upon your belly shall go forth, and dust eat all the days of your life.


The Enchanter (nachash) becomes the Snake/Serpent (nachash,) in punishment.



*

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

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?

Oh the dragons! Everyone forgets the dragons!

And the Cockatrices, they'll turn ya to stone if you look into their gaze... Or was that medusa?

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

You don't need money to build an army. All you need is manpower, and resources.

And foreskins, lots and lots of foreskins. They were a bartering commodity around David's time.

 

[McNap]

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

I think your approach on the ancients is interesting since lots of people may have it, but what I ask myself is:
Why would we assume that the apostles had less knowledge than we have?
We are talking about people who personally knew the son of God here. Apostleship is the highest spiritual gift (see 1 Corinthians 12:28).
Apostles had every possible spiritual gift. That includes the gift of prophesying, so it's kind of strange to assume that they could not oversee the future.

According to your approach Paul owes an apology to all gay christians, since he made a mistake saying: They stopped wanting to have seks with women.
We can also read his teksts as if there aren't any gay people, but in that case it wouldn't be fair to use these teksts to condemn the ones that claim to be gay.

 

[McNap]

Absolutely not!


The Qadesh were not homosexuals.


They were trained from childhood to perform Sacred Sex acts.


A heterosexual male Qadesh that performs anal sex on another male - is still a heterosexual performing a Sacred Sex act.


Having anal sex - does not produce fairy-dust - and POOF - you become homosexual. LOL!


And by the way - the act - is called sodomy - not homosexuality.


And, - obviously a lot of - Heterosexual - men like Anal sex, - as they experiment with other males in youth, and do such with females when older.




*

Okay, so the act is called sodomy instead of homosexuality.
Thanks for the correction.
In the Netherlands we call the act just homosexuality. We don't have such word as sodomy.
Also, in the Netherlands we don't have the term 'Act of creation'. For that our bible just has the word: creature (sometimes creation).
Now, act of creation seems to have several meanings including creation. Does it also mean: Making babies? Am I getting this right?

 

[Estro Felino]

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

I don't feel empathy for them either. Because if you are born bisexual, you are attracted to both genders since adolescence.

 

[Ingledsva]

Absolutely not!


The Qadesh were not homosexuals.


They were trained from childhood to perform Sacred Sex acts.


A heterosexual male Qadesh that performs anal sex on another male - is still a heterosexual performing a Sacred Sex act.


Having anal sex - does not produce fairy-dust - and POOF - you become homosexual. LOL!


And by the way - the act - is called sodomy - not homosexuality.


And, - obviously a lot of - Heterosexual - men like Anal sex, - as they experiment with other males in youth, and do such with females when older.

Okay, so the act is called sodomy instead of homosexuality.
Thanks for the correction.
In the Netherlands we call the act just homosexuality. We don't have such word as sodomy.
Also, in the Netherlands we don't have the term 'Act of creation'. For that our bible just has the word: creature (sometimes creation).
Now, act of creation seems to have several meanings including creation. Does it also mean: Making babies? Am I getting this right?

They had a God and Goddess, and believed their coming together was the beginning of creation.


The Qadesh in the Temple played the God or Goddess role allowing the people to be the other in a simulation of the Act of Creation.


They did this as an act of Worship, which for the Hebrew, made it Idolatry, and a death offense.

The Bible tells us that the Hebrew kept turning back to their old Gods, and setting them, and this Sacred Sex, up in the Temples.


In fact there is a verse in the Bible where the Hebrew say they were far better off when they followed their Goddess.


What little I could find on resulting children from this Sacred Sex, - said that they were either raised to be Qadesh, or were happily adopted by the people, as they were considered to be the Children of God.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't feel empathy for them either. Because if you are born bisexual, you are attracted to both genders since adolescence.

I'm not sure why you folks are having a problem with Bi Folks?


Bi Folk like both sexes, which means they might go back and forth between them, until they fall in love with someone from one side or the other.


*

 

[Sonofason]

Nachash comes to us by way of India and actually is snake.


Snake/serpent is Naga in India. By the time it reaches Babylon it is Nagash, and becomes Nachash in the Hebrew. All with the exact same meanings.


Both Snake and Serpent can be used in that translation, because a snake is a serpent.


Just look at some of the other uses. Gen 49:17, Psa 58:4, etc. Very obviously it is also snake.


And what would be the difference - since nothing in that category can speak.


Also - in Gen 3:1 it is probably meant to be another of the meanings - Enchanter. A play on words - as it were. A double meaning.


Gen 3:1 And the "Enchanter" (nachash/snake/serpent) was cunning above all living things of the land which YHVH Elohiym had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that Elohiym has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?


Gen 3:14 And said YHVH Elohiym to the "Enchanter" (nachash/snake/serpent,) Because you have done this, cursed are you; in the manner of dumb beasts living in the fields, upon your belly shall go forth, and dust eat all the days of your life.


The Enchanter (nachash) becomes the Snake/Serpent (nachash,) in punishment.



*

There are many human beings on this planet who are snakes. I've spoken to several right here on this very website.

I have no doubt all of God's adversaries are snakes as well.

 

[Sonofason]

And foreskins, lots and lots of foreskins. They were a bartering commodity around David's time.

Right, exactly the sort of response I expected. I'll just leave you to your imagination and desires.

 

[Ingledsva]

There are many human beings on this planet who are snakes. I've spoken to several right here on this very website.

I have no doubt all of God's adversaries are snakes as well.

1. You should not be calling people whom you don't agree with, snakes.

YOU are on a debate site - so YOU can debate, after all.


2. Nachash has a very interesting history.


The word also means a Serpent Sorcerer, and to "hiss" incantations.


And again, it has the same meaning from India, to Babylon, to the Hebrew.


Jesus is associated with the Serpent, the Fiery Serpent, the lifting up in the desert, etc., and the word translated "carpenter," comes from a word meaning to craft, - in a magical sense.


And of course he is accused of being a Sorcerer.



*