That Whole Homosexual--Sin Thing

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not christian, but I would stand up for your right to believe and practice as you wish, even if I don't agree with it.
I'm not a female, but I still support their rights, equality, etc.

Those who genuinely love liberty understand this.

+1

 

[Dan Mellis]

You missed the point. It may be detrimental in ways we don't understand, like chocolate is detrimental to a dog in ways it can't understand.

Thats a poor conclusion. A dog hasn't the ability to assess the effect of chocolate on its wellbeing. We do have the ability to assess the effect of homosexuality on our wellbeing.

Unless you mean the wellbeing of our soul. You'd have to prove we had a soul for that though, and I think thats the easiest point to assail when it comes to religion.

Consciousness (the soul) is the result of neurons and chemicals in our brains. We know this because if we damage our brains, we can fundamentally change as a person. We can even develop 2 consciousnesses as a result of brain trauma - does that mean we have 2 souls?

I'm more confident in the nonexistence of a soul than I am about the nonexistence of god.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Your addition of “disgusting” doesn’t reflect my feelings on homosexuality or on homosexual men.

In which case, I apologise. I didn't intend to malign you.

 

[Skwim]

“All homosexuals want to do is be left alone to live out their lives in peace the best they can?” True for some, not all. Certainly not true for pride walkers and even less true for social justice warriors who also happen to be LGBT+

So living as a homosexual precludes walking in a parade for equal rights and treatment? How thoughtful of you to demean their right to assembly.

Sex outside marriage is a temptation. Heterosexuality is nature.

?????

Unnatural, period. To the world? Natural.

????? Gotta say, you're replies here aren't making much sense.

It’s not an answer I’d give in science class.

In other words you're willing to lie on a test. Isn't lying verboten in the Bible? Sure it is.

Leviticus 19:11
11 “ ‘Do not steal. “ ‘Do not lie. “ ‘Do not deceive one another.

Proverbs 12:22
22 The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.​

God must be very proud of you.

This isn’t science class.

So what?

Sex is part of the system we live in and the pleasure of it is also.

Oh! So sex is for more than procreation after all. Nice to see you admit it. After all, I'd hate to see you upset with mom and dad for enjoying themselves after you'd gone to bed.

It’s considered to be perversion because it’s perversion.

Not to be disrespectful, but just how much education have you had? I only ask because if you dropped out of high school before graduation it would explain a lot here and I would be far more understanding of your replies.

That comment says much of you.

Thank you.

...and that comment says even more.

Good! Now you have a better idea of whom you're dealing with, which is always helpful when engaging a stranger.

.

 

[Spartan]

I will take the word of all of the archaeology, all over the world, including Israel, over what is posted in something called the "Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies!" The agenda isn't even carefully concealed!

And here's the thing: (taken from Wikipedia): "There is an almost universal consensus among scholars that the Exodus story is best understood as myth; more specifically, it is a "charter" (or foundation) myth, a story told to explain a society's origins and to provide the ideological foundation for its culture and institutions. While some continue to discuss the potential historicity or plausibility of the Exodus story, the overwhelming majority have abandoned it as "a fruitless pursuit" There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots."

Finally, you might try reading "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (2002)

Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to any number of Biblical subjects. And FInkelstein is a liberal minimalist who has been refuted in the past for his late-dating errors.

I'll stand by Genesis and the archaeological information I posted.

 

[Deeje]

Some of the things in the Bible are very wrong indeed and should not be followed. It is wise to discover if you and your partner are compatible before you marry, including having a sexual relationship. I was a Christian of the born again stupidity as a young person as was my husband, it didn't stop us consummating our relationship before marriage. Our three daughters are Christians, the two married ones lived with their partners for a couple of years before marriage with our blessing. They have been married 21 and 19 years, which isn't bad going these days. My husband and I will have been married for 50 years in August.

As I said, if you are a Christian, sexual morality is not an option....it is a requirement. If your relationship with your mate is based on more important things than sex, your compatibility in those areas will set the scene for your sex life as well. Love conquers all.

We note in the Bible that Joseph did not consummate his marriage to Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus. That shows great respect for God, for the child she was carrying, and for his wife.

Self-control is a fruit of God's spirit, so those among my brotherhood wait until marriage, because sex is not a right to us, but a gift, not to be abused or stolen before its authorisation by scriptural marriage...something 'God has yoked together'.

 

[Left Coast]

That's where the free will argument comes into play. God loves us enough he allows us the freedom to choose. One could argue that a loving God wouldn't allow us harmful choices, but if that were the case, I'm sure people would just as vehemently argue that a loving God would allow the freedom of choice.

But in your analogy our free will was already sunk from the moment God decided we would be brought into existence the way we are. He created us like dogs who want to eat chocolate, not just unwilling but unable to comprehend the cosmic consequences of our actions. And so, quite naturally, we are going to do what seems best to us with the information we can comprehend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, better he be single or seek the Lord to help him fight temptation.

I thought that it was better to get married, Being with the one that one loves ends temptation. Surely you are not against marriage.

 

[Skwim]

You missed the point. It may be detrimental in ways we don't understand, like chocolate is detrimental to a dog in ways it can't understand.

Then it must be some kind of supernatural domain of god's (for which he sets the rules), because currently here on Earth homosexual sex is not necessarily more harmful than heterosexual sex.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to any number of Biblical subjects. And FInkelstein is a liberal minimalist who has been refuted in the past for his late-dating errors.

I'll stand by Genesis and the archaeological information I posted.

Genesis? Seriously? That is a book of myths. No wonder you get so much wrong.

 

[Dan Mellis]

That's where the free will argument comes into play. God loves us enough he allows us the freedom to choose. One could argue that a loving God wouldn't allow us harmful choices, but if that were the case, I'm sure people would just as vehemently argue that a loving God would allow the freedom of choice.

Free will doesnt come into play at all if we're talking god.I'll explain... do you believe these three premises?

1: god is omniscient

2: god is omnipotent

3: god created us

If so, then god created us knowing exactly what each of us would do. Not only that, he created us in such a way that we would do exactly what he knew we would do. So if we sin, he knew exactly how that would happen - and built this in when he made us. Then he decides to punish us for doing what he decided we would do?

Of course, if god didnt exist then it would make much more sense and free will can have room to be debated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Free will doesnt come into play at all if we're talking god.I'll explain... do you believe these three premises?

1: god is omniscient

2: god is omnipotent

3: god created us

If so, then god created us knowing exactly what each of us would do. Not only that, he created us in such a way that we would do exactly what he knew we would do. So if we sin, he knew exactly how that would happen - and built this in when he made us. Then he decides to punish us for doing what he decided we would do?

Of course, if god didnt exist then it would make much more sense and free will can have room to be debated.

Sadly those that believe 1,2 and 3 go into cognitive dissonance when logic tells them that there is not free will and that their good and evil actions are both due to God according to their own beliefs.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Thats a poor conclusion. A dog hasn't the ability to assess the effect of chocolate on its wellbeing. We do have the ability to assess the effect of homosexuality on our wellbeing.

Unless you mean the wellbeing of our soul. You'd have to prove we had a soul for that though, and I think thats the easiest point to assail when it comes to religion.

Consciousness (the soul) is the result of neurons and chemicals in our brains. We know this because if we damage our brains, we can fundamentally change as a person. We can even develop 2 consciousnesses as a result of brain trauma - does that mean we have 2 souls?

I'm more confident in the nonexistence of a soul than I am about the nonexistence of god.

I don't have to prove anything, the main thrust of my argument is that I take it on faith that God doesn't approve of homosexual activity, possibly for reasons incomprehensible to humans. If you disagree, that's fine, but insisting that humans nust be able to comprehend why something is negative is rather begging the question. We humans sure hold ourselves in high regard, and I appreciate the concept of unknowable truth is challenging to some, but there it is.

Humans have a tendency to anthropomorphise God, you know, the old bearded guy in a robe. But that is only a model to make God more accessible to the average person. God in actuality is an unknowable, incomprehensible supreme being. Assuming his thoughts, desires or reasons are knowable to humans is essentially hubris. Part of being Christian is submission to God, that means trusting his reasons even if they're unclear, challenging as this is do the ego driven Western mind.

Hey, if you don't believe in God, that's cool. I'm not telling you what to believe. But for those of us that do, "God knows us better than we know ourselves" is an article of faith. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy the purely deterministic expectations of the post enlightened modern mind, but here we are.

 

[Sky Rivers]

In which case, I apologise. I didn't intend to malign you.

Thank you.

 

[Sky Rivers]

So living as a homosexual precludes walking in a parade for equal rights and treatment? How thoughtful of you to demean their right to assembly.

Their right to peacefully assemble isn’t what I have an issue with. My issue is clothing choice, presence of minors, and a strange need to be proud of something they claim isn’t a choice. Then, I also have an issue with “***** hats” so...

?????

????? Gotta say, you're replies here aren't making much sense.

What’s difficult to understand?

In other words you're willing to lie on a test. Isn't lying verboten in the Bible? Sure it is.

Leviticus 19:11
11 “ ‘Do not steal. “ ‘Do not lie. “ ‘Do not deceive one another.

Proverbs 12:22
22 The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.​

God must be very proud of you.

I don’t see how it’s lying to answer a question with memorized data when that’s what’s required of me. Do I assert the memorized data to be fact? I don’t. However, the test isn’t asking me my personal view on whether humans are animals, it’s necessitating I respond with what I was educated to memorize on the topic.

Oh! So sex is for more than procreation after all. Nice to see you admit it. After all, I'd hate to see you upset with mom and dad for enjoying themselves after you'd gone to bed.

Was this comment necessary?

Not to be disrespectful, but just how much education have you had? I only ask because if you dropped out of high school before graduation it would explain a lot here and I would be far more understanding of your replies.

The typical mainstream education, ending at graduating high school.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Free will doesnt come into play at all if we're talking god.I'll explain... do you believe these three premises?

1: god is omniscient

2: god is omnipotent

3: god created us

If so, then god created us knowing exactly what each of us would do. Not only that, he created us in such a way that we would do exactly what he knew we would do. So if we sin, he knew exactly how that would happen - and built this in when he made us. Then he decides to punish us for doing what he decided we would do?

Of course, if god didnt exist then it would make much more sense and free will can have room to be debated.

I'm not a Calvinist, sorry.

God's omniscience and omnipotence while allowing free will has been long debated, and I'm not going to try to sumarise 2000 years of theological thought here, other than to say I accept that free will is a thing.

FWIW, I don't believe God "punishes" us for sin, I believe sin inherently harms us, which is why God doesn't want us to do it.

On the other hand, I am familiar with the deterministic arguments that free will is an illusion, that all human action is deterministic, that we are just ghosts in the machine, the Chinese Room paradox, and all that. Those are some pretty compelling arguments, IF we posit a purely deterministic universe, sure. However, for our purposes here, we're assuming the existence of God, and therefore allowing for faith based positions. If you want to claim there is no God, that's a valid position, however it rather renders the whole discussion about why God doesn't approve of homosexual activity moot. If God doesn't exist, then He doesn't approve or disapprove of anything.

 

[Sky Rivers]

I thought that it was better to get married, Being with the one that one loves ends temptation. Surely you are not against marriage.

If a man is struggling with homosexual temptation, involving a wife and possibly children seems counterintuitive. No?

I’m not against marriage between a man and a woman, equally yoked.

 

[Deeje]

I don't find your authority to speak for God particularly credible. The fact that you are so wrong about this just decreases your credibility.
Please don't take this personally, there are a zillion other religionists whose demonstrably wrong beliefs demonstrates clearly that they don't know anything important about God.

How does God speak to us? Through his written word. We have no other solid communication from God. So please show us where we will find authorisation for sexual activity before scriptural marriage? God's laws to Israel contained very detailed actions that were prohibited under penalty of death in many cases.

I would not use the word "illicit". "Irresponsible" is a good deal more objective. Sex that carries risks of results that the participants aren't prepared for is irresponsible.

I agree....But I would apply both words. Illicit means it is against the law. God's law was specific....no marriage, no sex.

Plenty of heterosexual people do that, including lawfully wedded couples.
If you can't provide a proper childhood for your progeny, then you have no business having sex that is potentially fertile. I don't care what your status is with the church or state. It's still irresponsible to make a baby if you can't take care of him/her.

A look at the animal kingdom confirms that sex is for reproduction. The instinct for procreation is strong in most species. The mating, birth and nurturing of young is all programmed. They need no one to teach them what to do. This ensures that perpetuation of the species is guaranteed. But other species do not have any choice in the matter. As any breeder will tell you, nature will find a way.

For humans, our procreation is tempered by rules....no other creatures have moral laws because no other creature has the capacity for considered choice in what they do. Instinct drives everything. They make no conscious moral choices.

We have some instinctive behaviours....but we alone have laws governing how we use them. For humans, a family life for children with the balance of two sexes in parenting trains children for their own role as parents in the future. We have to be taught everything. We just have to hope that our teachers got it right, otherwise we set them up for failure......look at the state of family life today......it is a shambles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a man is struggling with homosexual temptation, involving a wife and possibly children seems counterintuitive. No?

I’m not against marriage between a man and a woman, equally yoked.

You seem to be the one that advocated for involving a wife and children in an earlier posts. Why not man and man equally yoked or woman and woman equally yoked? You do not need to marry a woman if that is what is bothering you.

And remember, homosexuality is not a "temptation". It is an orientation. It appears that you are claiming that your God is an evil being.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sadly those that believe 1,2 and 3 go into cognitive dissonance when logic tells them that there is not free will and that their good and evil actions are both due to God according to their own beliefs.

Meh, it's essentially a more complex version of the unstoppable force vs. Unmovable object paradox. There are ways around it, especially if one allows for ethereal mechanics.