The bible and gays

[ether-ore]

To proselytize and pontificate?

Read below further down for my answer.

 

[ether-ore]

We don't have agency where there's no real choice to be made. "Do this or die!" simply isn't in God's lexicon.

If you do not believe in agency, then what do you suppose is our purpose for being here in mortality?

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps you do not want the verses in Leviticus 18:22,,, 20:13 and Romans 1:26,27 to mean what they do mean, but they are there.

Those passages aren't "against homosexuality." Perhaps you don't want to accept what they mean and why they mean what they mean?

No, but I interpret it to mean so.

You're interpretation isn't universally accepted or universally applicable.

I said that what is, is not evidence of what should be. There is diversity, it is just that it shouldn't necessarily be that way. If I didn't believe that LDS has a corner on the market, I wouldn't espouse it.

So, humanity should all be the same color, same culture, same beliefs, same same same same??? Really?! Because nature teaches us that diversity is necessary to survival.
So, religion is either black or it's white? No shades of grey? How two-dimensional in a multidimensional universe! Bizarre that you're comfortable with condemning vast, vast chunks of humanity, all in a bid to be comfortably "right."

The human perspective is all we have if you don't accept the collective testimony of all the prophets which corroborate each other which gives God's perspective.

...from a collective human perspective.

That makes no sense. Is your identity determined by the diverse opinions of others or do you decide what you identity is and reveal it to others?

It's both/and. The gathered community decides my identity as a member of the clergy, as well as myself. My children and wife partially identify me as "father" and "husband." It's a community endeavor, much as God (in Trinity) is community endeavor.

Sorry, I have this tendency to see fire where there is smoke. I assume that if one has that identity, then they are performing the associated action.

Well, of course they are! But here's the thing that I think trumps a very surface interpretation of a few texts taken at face value: if it's true that homosexuality is an identity given to some by God in creation, just as heterosexuality is an identity given to some by God in creation, and if heterosexuals are expected to act that identity out sexually, so homosexuals should be expected to do the same. Such heterosexual expression is natural and healthy, and applauded by religion, so much so that a special union was created in order to celebrate it. In the same way, homosexual expression is also natural and healthy. The difference is that homosexual expression has not (until recently) been celebrated by religion. I've got to ask "why?" The answer must lie in medical and cultural understanding (or lack thereof). The ancients didn't recognize homosexuality as an identity. All they recognized were the acts, which, to them, were not natural outgrowths of identity (since homosexuality didn't exist for them), but manifestations of lust. We know differently now. we now recognize homosexuality as an identity, and its attendant manifestations as outgrowths of that identity. Not all heterosexual activity is driven by lust. Not all homosexual activity is driven by lust. Had the ancients known of homosexuality as a healthy identity, they wouldn't have written what they did.

No. I only admit to wishing I could convince them. That is all.

So it's more important to convince others of your viewpoint than it is to celebrate their viewpoint and then celebrate the unity-in-diversity. Again, that's very two-dimensional thinking.

Except that I believe it is and that you can.

What you believe simply isn't cogent. you can believe that the earth is flat -- but you'd be wrong. You're simply wrong on this point -- no matter what you believe.

Maybe, but I'll still take the precaution thank you.

Be sure and don't touch a black person, either. It may rub off...

Exactly what do you believe is the point of a debate? It is to pursued the listeners to the debate (and perhaps even the other side) that your point of view is the correct one. There is no other point to it. I'm aware that there more people (according to the numbers) watching the discussions in here than actually participate.

Not true! I'm not here to debate that "my viewpoint" is "correct." I'm here to, hopefully, bring to light the systemic violence that is perpetrated against a segment of humanity in the "name" of "God" and "love." And I'm here to say that this isn't an "all or nothing" proposition. If you don't believe homosexuality is OK then don't participate in it! No one's asking you to trash your values. BUT... have respect for the points of view of others, and don't condemn people for not thinking the same as you, for Pete's sake! Just because homosexuality's not right for you doesn't mean that it's not right for others.

 

[sojourner]

No. I do not believe being Native American is an action, but neither do I believe that being gay is the same as either.

You'd be wrong on that point.

 

[sojourner]

We will just have to disagree about that.

No, we're not going to just sweep this under the rug. This is important, because it speaks directly to entitlement that leads to dehumanization. It's not as simple as "agreeing to disagree." God's laws do not apply to those for whom they have no covenantal importance. Because that's what the laws are: instruments of covenant. And the covenants were between God and God's people -- not God and humanity. You can't just usurp other peoples' belief systems like that.

It is you that believes that God created homosexuals. I written several times in here why I do not believe that is the case.

God is Creator. They are created. Therefore, God created them. Your reasons simply aren't good enough, because they're based on an understanding of the texts that is underdeveloped.

If you do not believe in agency, then what do you suppose is our purpose for being here in mortality?

I do believe in agency. But I don't think you really do. You're simply giving lip service to it, because your belief system doesn't give people a real choice. Our purpose for being created is to give God someone to love and be in relationship with.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

You and Christians like you LOVE Sin. It is all you talk about.

No I don't love sin. I see how sin equals death

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Ben, Immortal has been extremely patient and polite with you. It is you who has been on the defensive. He is merely asking you to state WHY you believe as you do or to explain those things that you say that make no sense. You have the one saying you don't care about other people's views. You need to understand that.

Jo I already stated many times why I bleieved as I do. People don't like what I say.

 

[psychoslice]

He did not create man to be with man and woman with woman

Not being rude, but he didn't create man and woman to have anal and oral sex, but they do.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Not being rude, but he didn't create man and woman to have anal and oral sex, but they do.

When a couple man and woman are married I believe God honors their marriage that includes their sex life.

 

[ether-ore]

Those passages aren't "against homosexuality." Perhaps you don't want to accept what they mean and why they mean what they mean?

If that is what you think, then anything can be construed of mean other than what it means.

You're interpretation isn't universally accepted or universally applicable.

Oh well.

So, humanity should all be the same color, same culture, same beliefs, same same same same??? Really?! Because nature teaches us that diversity is necessary to survival.
So, religion is either black or it's white? No shades of grey? How two-dimensional in a multidimensional universe! Bizarre that you're comfortable with condemning vast, vast chunks of humanity, all in a bid to be comfortably "right."

No. and you are conflating different kinds of diversity. Being right for myself isn't my motive.

...from a collective human perspective.

Nothing to add here.

It's both/and. The gathered community decides my identity as a member of the clergy, as well as myself. My children and wife partially identify me as "father" and "husband." It's a community endeavor, much as God (in Trinity) is community endeavor.

did your children tell you that you were their father? Or did you identify yourself to them? Anyway, I don't consider that all of the pertinent conditions are the same. I believe that the members of the Godhead are three separate and distinct beings.

Well, of course they are! But here's the thing that I think trumps a very surface interpretation of a few texts taken at face value: if it's true that homosexuality is an identity given to some by God in creation, just as heterosexuality is an identity given to some by God in creation, and if heterosexuals are expected to act that identity out sexually, so homosexuals should be expected to do the same. Such heterosexual expression is natural and healthy, and applauded by religion, so much so that a special union was created in order to celebrate it. In the same way, homosexual expression is also natural and healthy. The difference is that homosexual expression has not (until recently) been celebrated by religion. I've got to ask "why?" The answer must lie in medical and cultural understanding (or lack thereof). The ancients didn't recognize homosexuality as an identity. All they recognized were the acts, which, to them, were not natural outgrowths of identity (since homosexuality didn't exist for them), but manifestations of lust. We know differently now. we now recognize homosexuality as an identity, and its attendant manifestations as outgrowths of that identity. Not all heterosexual activity is driven by lust. Not all homosexual activity is driven by lust. Had the ancients known of homosexuality as a healthy identity, they wouldn't have written what they did.

Except that I don't believe that God created people that way. I believe we are born into bodies that are predisposed for numerous reasons having to do with the desires and appetites of the physical body, to some form of temptation or other which God allows but does not cause.

So it's more important to convince others of your viewpoint than it is to celebrate their viewpoint and then celebrate the unity-in-diversity. Again, that's very two-dimensional thinking.

There is no unity of diversity between sin and non sin.

What you believe simply isn't cogent. you can believe that the earth is flat -- but you'd be wrong. You're simply wrong on this point -- no matter what you believe.

If I am wrong then there is no such thing as repentance.

Be sure and don't touch a black person, either. It may rub off...

Oh, I shake hands with them all of the time at church.

Not true! I'm not here to debate that "my viewpoint" is "correct." I'm here to, hopefully, bring to light the systemic violence that is perpetrated against a segment of humanity in the "name" of "God" and "love." And I'm here to say that this isn't an "all or nothing" proposition. If you don't believe homosexuality is OK then don't participate in it! No one's asking you to trash your values. BUT... have respect for the points of view of others, and don't condemn people for not thinking the same as you, for Pete's sake! Just because homosexuality's not right for you doesn't mean that it's not right for others.

I'm not worried about Pete's sake. I'm more concerned with 'some' (one or two) who might be reading and think there is something in what I'm saying. If you do not like what I am saying, you are free to put me on ignore.

 

[psychoslice]

When a couple man and woman are married I believe God honors their marriage that includes their sex life.

Yes I see, but I don't see it that way, that's more like cherry picking, making it suit your own needs and beliefs, well that how I see it.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Yes I see, but I don't see it that way, that's more like cherry picking, making it suit your own needs and beliefs, well that how I see it.

God honors those types of marriage. No picking

 

[ether-ore]

No, we're not going to just sweep this under the rug. This is important, because it speaks directly to entitlement that leads to dehumanization. It's not as simple as "agreeing to disagree." God's laws do not apply to those for whom they have no covenantal importance. Because that's what the laws are: instruments of covenant. And the covenants were between God and God's people -- not God and humanity. You can't just usurp other peoples' belief systems like that.

There are different covenants. God made one type of covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He made another with all of us before the world began and our part of the covenant was that we agreed to be judged by God's laws. but, I guess you do not believe in a day of judgment and that all scriptural references to it only apply to those already saved?

God is Creator. They are created. Therefore, God created them. Your reasons simply aren't good enough, because they're based on an understanding of the texts that is underdeveloped.

It isn't that he text are underdeveloped. It is that they have been altered, which is why a restoration was necessary.

I do believe in agency. But I don't think you really do. You're simply giving lip service to it, because your belief system doesn't give people a real choice. Our purpose for being created is to give God someone to love and be in relationship with.

That is not the whole reason.

 

[psychoslice]

God honors those types of marriage. No picking

But still you have no proof of God letting that happen, its nowhere in the bible.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

But still you have no proof of God letting that happen, its nowhere in the bible.

God makes it clear man and woman. That is enough proof

 

[psychoslice]

God makes it clear man and woman. That is enough proof

But the sex that God wanted man and woman to do was to recreate, populating the earth, so anything other than that, is just for pure pleasure, just like most sex that people do.

 

[JoStories]

Exactly what do you believe is the point of a debate? It is to pursued the listeners to the debate (and perhaps even the other side) that your point of view is the correct one. There is no other point to it. I'm aware that there more people (according to the numbers) watching the discussions in here than actually participate.

The point of a debate is to rationally discuss issues and perhaps listen to the other side, which you do not. I stated that there a plenty of people who disagree that Paul met Jesus and you called me absurd. Your posts are often full of rancor and discord. I do listen and try to see other sides but I also state my own, from 2 decades of theology study leading to my PhD. You have, or at least it seems, that you don't have any interest in hearing or understanding another person's POV. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it but for now, I do not see you doing this.

 

[JoStories]

I believe God is eternal and that this isn't the first earth He has created and it won't be His last. If that is the case, then it makes little sense for Him to keep re-inventing the wheel each time He creates man. Yes, here is mortality.

You asked me specific questions and then don't remark on any but the one about mortality. And this for you is the point of debate? What of my views of reincarnation and lessons and the Bardo state? See, this is why I asked you why you are here.

 

[JoStories]

To proselytize and pontificate?

We've seen that often enough Sojourner, non?

 

[JoStories]

Not true! I'm not here to debate that "my viewpoint" is "correct." I'm here to, hopefully, bring to light the systemic violence that is perpetrated against a segment of humanity in the "name" of "God" and "love." And I'm here to say that this isn't an "all or nothing" proposition. If you don't believe homosexuality is OK then don't participate in it! No one's asking you to trash your values. BUT... have respect for the points of view of others, and don't condemn people for not thinking the same as you, for Pete's sake! Just because homosexuality's not right for you doesn't mean that it's not right for others.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!! You get a speaks for me card anytime my friend!!