The bible and gays

[ether-ore]

Yea, but I think that was the whole idea of making up such a belief, just to make everyone happy.

Yes, of course. We made it up. It would never occur to you that God just might be being merciful or that this concept would make more sense. Oh well... what ever.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Then why did you say otherwise?

An economy of words is a sign of good writing.

Why do you seem to think that just because it's in the bible, it must be fact? The stuff you're referring to is nothing more than mythic story, and we are not bound to see it otherwise.

So, you don't hold the bible to any empirical value, but you expect us to.

Your mistake. The Christian faith has never been predicated on the bible alone. No matter wha the fundigelicals say. which, BTW, is why I don't put much stock in that particular ilk.

Then why are you holding us to that standard?

Huh. The bible contradicts itself. The wise reader/apologist/interpreter knows which are archetypal themes and which are cultural anomalies.

What evidence are you referring to?

Welcome to my sense of propriety.

That's your prerogative, of course, but it fosters an awfully small world view of humanity, does it not?

Yes -- and we live in the now or we'r not really living.

Neither am I chained down to any form of faith such as religion. I'm also not constricted by inner morals.

Not sure how that's cogent here, but good for you.

I have a feeling you and may see more eye-to-eye than you think. My concern in my initial response was that your arguments seemed to be less than airtight.

Of course there is.

I also have the right to comment on it.

Except that arguments from reason are grounded in fact. You're throwing around an awful lot of supposition as if it was fact.

Theology doesn't appear to be on your radar of structure.

Logical debate can be fun.

Your first couple of posts to which I responded seem to be highly bigoted against people of faith.

Bully for you. But I wonder if you're adequately parsing the differences between theological constructions/avatars, and ontological arguments? It appears as though that's a weak point for you.

Well I might as well cut this off as it is very tedious and goes nowhere.
I am biased against, but am not bigoted. I don't like most people in general, I really don't like people who try to add on to reality.
It's who I am, sue me. That doesn't mean I disregard everything they may say, I just don't practice respect.
-
I use the bible as my standpoint against the Christian faith. I can use a few other things too, depending on the denomination.
But, in general, I take the bible for what it is and have given study to it.
The main question I ask believers are "do you know [this] [this] and [this] are in the bible?"
I try to provide non-poetic verses as well, so they can't just go "oh we don't take that literally" or "oh it's just a metaphor".
It's not really a strategy so much as it is a crash course realization session, so that discourse can be more... entertaining?

That's all I've got left to say, I default this argument to you.
I've not got the patience to continue.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, of course. We made it up. It would never occur to you that God just might be being merciful or that this concept would make more sense. Oh well... what ever.

No sorry, it didn't occur to me, its sounds like a movie.

 

[ether-ore]

No sorry, it didn't occur to me, its sounds like a movie.

<chuckles>

 

[roger1440]

That is silly, there are many gays today and there has always been gays, even many Jews are gay but keep it to themselves of course, is the world all gay today ?.

Look very close at the sexual laws in the book of Leviticus. There is a common denominator. Sexual acts that limited or denied procreation was out lawed. Keep in mind the early Jews were nomads. The mortality rate was extremely high. If it wasn’t for these laws them Jews would have died out long ago. It goes back to Abraham. What was God’s promise to him?

“I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore…” (Genesis 22:17)

 

[Kirran]

You know, gay people can and do procreate.

Even without modern technologies, it isn't hard to imagine how they might have done so in the past.

 

[roger1440]

You know, gay people can and do procreate.

Even without modern technologies, it isn't hard to imagine how they might have done so in the past.

That's not the point.

 

[Kirran]

That's not the point.

Well you just made the point that it was about procreation, so I fail to see how this is irrelevant.

 

[ether-ore]

Well you just made the point that it was about procreation, so I fail to see how this is irrelevant.

That homosexuals have the capacity to procreate is not the point, because that is not the whole requirement. Children are entitled to a father and a mother and even more than that, there is the issue of eternal family as well eternal lives. You will not likely even know what that means, but it is not something that homosexuals won't even remotely have the opportunity to do because by their actions they have chosen not to or have rendered themselves unable to.

 

[roger1440]

Well you just made the point that it was about procreation, so I fail to see how this is irrelevant.

Are you telling me, a homosexual sex act can produce a child?

 

[psychoslice]

<chuckles>

Yes it does sound stupid.

 

[JoStories]

I can only hope. I had a first cousin who died of complications due to aids. He was gay, but he was also an actor and a quite good one. He could tell the most entertaining and funny stories. At a family reunion once, he complained to me that he couldn't understand why the church did not accept him as he was. With that question it was evident that he did not understand the function of he church or the purpose of life; so yes I can understand why it would not seem tenable to you. There was no satisfactory answer for him either. It leaves me in despair. But I recognize there is nothing to be done by mere humans. Only God can intercede and since He perhaps considers that He already has (in scripture), for Him to do any more would violate man's agency; and that is something God will not do.

I am curious; on what do you base your belief in reincarnation? I mean besides being Buddhist. How did you come to the conclusion that multiple lives are a reality?

Let me answer your last questions first. I have known that I have been through many lifetimes since I was a child. I am NA. In the course of my youth, I was involved in many 'sweat lodges' and as I grew, I was trained in the way of the Shaman which entailed many vision quests. I hope you know what those are and if not, please goggle them as I don't have time right now. The kitten is awake and I have to attend to her shortly. I 'saw' my past lives in that training. I have also traveled in dreams and saw some of the lives there as well. For these reasons, among others, I left the Christian faith as it made no sense and I was being told I was dealing with the 'devil' and that is the kindest thing I was told. The best path, given my upbringing and my views on God, was Buddhist. I'm sure you are aware that there is Biblical precedence about reincarnation as well.

Now, regarding your first paragraph, if you loved your cousin, and I assume you did, and btw, sorry for that loss, how can you tell yourself it is fine that your faith condemns him, particularly since you say it 'left you in despair'? What bothers me even more is where you say you spoke with him and he didn't understand but then you say that he didn't understand the function of the church or the purpose of life. It is this last that truly troubles me. The purpose of life?? Seems more than a little arrogant to me. And demeaning to boot. You speak as though you have all the answers to life and anyone with the temerity to think otherwise is damned. How dare you? And in that last sentence, you say 'God will not do'. You now speak for God??? seems a tad arrogant there too. NO one speaks for God BUT God. Is not pride one of those things that your Bible preaches against? It seems in your pride you have forgotten what your Bible teaches.

 

[JoStories]

It is not.It just tells that this kind of lifestyle is not a normal one.Those who are gay, or know people who are gay, and agree with them, are the ones who call it homophobic.

The entirety of your comment is your opinion only. Being gay is as normal as breathing. And I would never refer to myself as homophobic. I leave that moniker to you and your ilk. The ones who try to tell me and the rest of the world that being gay 'is not a normal one'. To that, I say bull merde.

 

[JoStories]

Wow, but aren't you the articulate one? I am impressed. Anyway, I believe that same sex attraction is part of the human condition. As I said earlier, I believe this physical body does indeed have innate desires which may predispose it to homosexuality, perhaps even genetically predisposed. In terms of my understanding what that means for a being who existed as a spirit before coming to earth to gain a physical body for the first time is that that individual has a significant hurdle to overcome if he wishes to achieve the goal God desires for him.
As I interpret the text (in spite of my limitations) heterosexuality does need to be overcome if it is not restricted to the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman. The overall plan of happiness that has its outline in scripture and tells us where and who we came from and why we are here in mortality The coherence and cohesiveness of that story gives it credibility to some. The scriptures that proclaim against homosexuality combined with the overview of God's intended progress for His children are justification enough for me to say that homosexuality is not in accordance with God's will.
I merely state these things. I recognize that homosexuality will exist in spite of my opinions. All that is left is for me to mourn.

So for you, the soul can be gay before it reaches the corporeal body and must 'overcome' this alleged 'hurdle'. Why? Why would God have a soul be gay and then have to overcome this? Its not even remotely logical. And if all that you say is true, why in the world would you mourn, particularly if you think its God's will? I would think you would happily join Fred Phelps and the WBC.

 

[Kirran]

Are you telling me, a homosexual sex act can produce a child?

Certainly not.

 

[JoStories]

I find that very interesting and I'd like to expand on it a bit. I don't think it has ever been asked: What does God get out of all of this? The usual answer is obedience and worship. I think it is a little more that just that. I think He simply likes to be appreciated. Gratitude adds glory to His name because gratitude is increased by children being born into the world. But also, God's glory is increased by those who by eternal lives add glory to His name. A homosexual adds nothing to any of that.

Why would God need anything? The very definition of a god is an omnipotent being. A being without the need for anything. When you assign attributes to God, you humanize God and make God less. What you are doing is assigning a human emotion: gratitude, to God. And then you go on to say that being gay, I add nothing to God? Here you speak for God again. Rather arrogant, that. And lastly, do you honestly think the world can continue to sustain more and more people? It groans under the weight of idiots like the Duggars and the Bates. How many more will try to have 20 or so children and how long will the earth be able to handle that? Not much really.

 

[JoStories]

That homosexuals have the capacity to procreate is not the point, because that is not the whole requirement. Children are entitled to a father and a mother and even more than that, there is the issue of eternal family as well eternal lives. You will not likely even know what that means, but it is not something that homosexuals won't even remotely have the opportunity to do because by their actions they have chosen not to or have rendered themselves unable to.

Are you serious? I have seen some mothers who were so bad as that I wanted to punch their lights out. Mothers that dumped their children in the ER or fathers and I use the word loosely, that beat the snot out of their 'children'. Gay couples have raised children together and done a damned fine job of it. My cousin and his husband have two children and they are both extremely smart and well adjusted despite being children of FAS or abuse. So spare me that straights can do a better job of it.

 

[sojourner]

I said "gratitude is increased by children being born into the world". Homosexuals add nothing to that. Besides, they disobey the command to multiply and replenish the earth to say nothing of not being able to have eternal increase. Further, since they are disobeying God's morality laws, there is no way they are glorifying God by giving in to the lusts of their flesh.

So, heterosexuals who happen to be sterile also fall into the "You're screwed because you weren't grateful to Me" trap?

they disobey the command to multiply and replenish the earth

Where's the command to "replenish?" The command is to "fill" the earth. In case you hadn't noticed, the earth is full now.

to say nothing of not being able to have eternal increase.

Wait... What?! "Eternal increase?" That's a cultural thing that no longer fits in our theological scheme. for the ancient Hebrews, eternal life was given through offspring (to give the truncated version). That concept simply doesn't fly in the NT scheme of salvation.

Further, since they are disobeying God's morality laws, there is no way they are glorifying God by giving in to the lusts of their flesh.

What "morality laws" might those be?

I can't believe you're choosing some twisted theological excuse over not dehumanizing people.

 

[sojourner]

Within Christian theology, there are two points of view. The majority opinion is that if you don't make it to heaven, then you burn in hell forever. The LDS point of view is that if one does not repent, then they must pay the penalty for their own sins. After that payment is made however, that individual goes to a state of peace for eternity. This concept sounds a bit more just to me, so, yes, I believe it.

First of all, there are more than two points of view "within Christian theology."
Second, the "concept" sounds a bit more just, until you get to the "homosexuals are choosing to be less than human" part. At that point, it just begins to sound like Nazi propaganda against the Jews, or Confederate American rhetoric against the blacks, and the American expansionists stance on the First Nations. "These poor creatures simply aren't quite human, and they need our 'help' in order to become purified."

 

[sojourner]

Why would God need anything? The very definition of a god is an omnipotent being. A being without the need for anything. When you assign attributes to God, you humanize God and make God less. What you are doing is assigning a human emotion: gratitude, to God. And then you go on to say that being gay, I add nothing to God? Here you speak for God again. Rather arrogant, that. And lastly, do you honestly think the world can continue to sustain more and more people? It groans under the weight of idiots like the Duggars and the Bates. How many more will try to have 20 or so children and how long will the earth be able to handle that? Not much really.

To be fair, God DOES "get something out of it." God gets to have loving relationship with all God's children.

Oh! Wait! Unless those children are homosexual, in which case, they don't "glorify God enough" to really be fully loved by God.

OTOH, they're not really quite human in the first place, because they've "chosen" to "not glorify God," so why worry about them? Simply dismiss their humanity and their personhood and sweep them under the very convenient theological rug. There! The House of Smith is all Neat and Tidy now.