The bible and gays

[sojourner]

I’ll give you the shortest and simplest answer. If Jewish Law didn’t forbid homosexual acts, them Jews wouldn’t exist today.

... because, as the DSM and the medical community have warned us for years now: "Homosexuality is Contagious."

 

[sojourner]

It would never occur to you that God just might be being merciful or that this concept would make more sense.

It would never occur to you that God made homosexuals the way they are, that homosexuality is a normal, human expression of sexual identity, and that homosexuals glorify God just fine the way they are. The flip side of those concepts (which you've been promoting thus far) aren't indicative of "God being merciful." They're more indicative of "I think homosexuality is icky, but instead of taking responsibility for that POV, I'm just going to put it off on God and 'what God ordains.'"

 

[sojourner]

Oh,ok.

Really? That's all you have in answer to my questions?

 

[ether-ore]

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


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

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.

What "morality laws" might those be?

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

First off, I'm not dehumanizing anyone. What I am doing is suggesting that some humans are not living up to their full potential. Your idea of dehumanization comes from your reaction to what I said and not from what I actually said.
Heterosexuals who happen to be sterile are not responsible for their condition for one thing and being sterile is not a sin for another, so they are excusable.
The command to multiply and replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve and that command was never rescinded. I also disagree with you that the earth is full. That humans have not managed the living space very well is another thing.
Of course you realize I am LDS. The concept of eternal increase is most definitely a part of my theology. I dare say it is the most important concept of all. We believe that families created here on earth can be sealed together for eternity. Not only that, but that husbands and wives who have been sealed to each other according to God's law (Which is the sealing power... that what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven... remember that one... given to Peter?) which has been restored... they can have eternal increase; that is they can have children in the eternities.
Homosexuals cannot be sealed together in this way and they certainly cannot naturally have children, either in this life or in eternity. This is their choice. I am not dehumanizing them to say that. That is just the natural consequence of the lifestyle.

And, before you get off on homosexuality not being a choice; I do not deny that that spirit child of God who enters a physical body who's propensity it is for same sex attraction doesn't have to deal with that desire. It is the choice to act on the desire that is the problem. All our physical bodies have desires that need to be disciplined and overcome. Admittedly, some have different challenges than others, but we all came here in the first place to gain a body and to learn to control it and not give in to its inherent lusts.

 

[sojourner]

I really don't like people who try to add on to reality.

Really? So, I guess you didn't like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Jefferson, King, Niebuhr, Plato, Angelou, Tutu, and others who've "added on to known reality" by expanding our awareness?

I just don't practice respect.

And then you whine about my posts to you?? The love you make is the love you take, buddy!

I use the bible as my standpoint against the Christian faith.

1) The bible wasn't created to be a "standpoint against the Christian faith," so you're using it WRONG.
2) The points you make "biblically, thus far, have been ill-conceived, having been based upon a more eisegetical approach, which is never accurate.

But, in general, I take the bible for what it is and have given study to it.

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't use it as a weapon.
No, you haven't, for reasons I spelled out above. All you've done is either give it a surface glance, or else you're being dishonest about what you know it says.

The main question I ask believers are "do you know [this] [this] and [this] are in the bible?"

But it's really about more than "what's in the bible." It's about what the bible really says, and, in order to do that, you've got to dig past your own bias (which you, admittedly, aren't doing), dig past language and culture barriers, do at least a little form, historic, and literary criticism, and stop reading ancient, Middle Eastern texts with a post-modern, Western mind set.

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".

I guess you don't realize just how much of the texts are mythic and metaphoric. Really, there's very little in the waIt's y of historic fact about the bible, other than the historic placement of a few kings.

It's not really a strategy so much as it is a crash course realization session, so that discourse can be more... entertaining?

1) All you're helping anyone to realize is how biased you are against religion.
2) It's not entertaining anyone but you. But, then, you've made it clear just how egocentric you are. You don't like people, and no one outside your little circle matters to you.

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

...Because you're losing the argument.

You know, what I'm quickly discovering is that, by these few posts, you appear to be as stubborn and closed-minded as those you seek to "bring to realization." The ONLY difference seems to be that they're stubborn about their beliefs, and you're stubborn about your beliefs. Wait! There is no difference.

 

[ether-ore]

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.

I do in fact believe that I have those answers. They are not my answers, but they are answers found in modern LDS scripture. I do not damn anyone. I only know what God's laws are and what non-conformity with them means. I do not claim to speak for God in the sense that I claim to be a prophet. I don't make that claim. But again, I do claim to understand God's will on certain issues. If I didn't make that claim, then I couldn't call my self a Mormon, could I? So there is no 'pride' here.
The purpose of life (according to LDS doctrine) is that we come here to mortality to gain a body and to learn to control it. The purpose of the church is to provide those sealing ordinances having to do with eternal marriage to which a homosexual is not compatible. I did care about my cousin, but he decided to act on his lusts contrary to God's law and there is nothing I can do about that but despair.

 

[Norman]

IGNORED

Norman: Hi Awoon, you are ignored, bye

 

[sojourner]

First off, I'm not dehumanizing anyone. What I am doing is suggesting that some humans are not living up to their full potential.

That's dehumanization -- the assertion that people aren't fully what some abstract and arbitrary standard says they "ought" to be. Which is precisely what Hitler did to the Jews, what the American South did to the blacks, and what the American Expansionists did to the First Nations.

Heterosexuals who happen to be sterile are not responsible for their condition for one thing and being sterile is not a sin for another, so they are excusable.

Homosexuals also aren't responsible for being who they are. God made them that way.

The command to multiply and replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve and that command was never rescinded.

"God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” -- Gen 1:28
There is no "replenish."

I also disagree with you that the earth is full.

Really?! Go to Delhi sometime and tell me that. Over 7 billion people disagree with you.

Of course you realize I am LDS. The concept of eternal increase is most definitely a part of my theology.

Your religious affiliation is no excuse for poor theology that leads to dehumanization.

I dare say it is the most important concept of all.

More important, it would seem, than the full humanity of all human beings.

We believe that families created here on earth can be sealed together for eternity. Not only that, but that husbands and wives who have been sealed to each other according to God's law (Which is the sealing power... that what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven... remember that one... given to Peter?) which has been restored... they can have eternal increase; that is they can have children in the eternities.

Fecundity doesn't trump love of fellow hunan beings.

Homosexuals cannot be sealed together in this way and they certainly cannot naturally have children, either in this life or in eternity.

According to you they can't be "sealed." Yes they can have children. Many homosexuals have natural children.

This is their choice.

No. It's not. It's how God made them.

I am not dehumanizing them to say that.

Yes, you are. To suggest that who one is isn't natural, or OK, or normal, or graced by God, is to dehumanize.

That is just the natural consequence of the lifestyle.

Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of Jews to not have blond hair and blue eyes. Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of blacks to not magically have European educations. Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of First Nations people to not build brick houses and use porcelain.

You don't get to invent a theology that purposefully shuts out people from God's grace and then assert that it, somehow, magically, is some sort of absolute for humanity. To do so is to dehumanize those who don't "fit in."

It is the choice to act on the desire that is the problem.

Which is also dehumanization. If heteros (who are normal) get to act on their desires in responsible ways, then homosexuals (who [according to medical science] are also normal) get to act on their desires in responsible ways. To deny a group of people sexual expression is to dehumanize them.

All our physical bodies have desires that need to be disciplined and overcome.

Healthy sexual expression isn't some "base desire to be overcome." It's a gift from God, which your "fecundity theology" should fully embrace. What you've somehow managed to do is to differentiate between certain kinds of loving relationships, arbitrarily calling some "OK" and others "abnormal." Then you take the ones you've labeled as "abnormal" and lump them together with all of the unhealthy sexual acts, and justify that through some untenable theological position. If healthy, loving homosexual relationships need to be "overcome," then so do healthy, loving heterosexual relationships. Remember your basic algebra: whatever you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other side.

Admittedly, some have different challenges than others, but we all came here in the first place to gain a body and to learn to control it and not give in to its inherent lusts.

Oh, no you don't! You don't get to slip in "lust" when you're referring to normal, healthy, homosexual relationships. That's another example of dehumanization. heterosexuals are capable of love. homosexuals are only capable of lust.

You really need to take a closer look at what's flying under your moral radar.

 

[Norman]

So it was a choice that I am gay? I think not. I was born this way. And it is NOT a choice that I made.

Norman, Hi JoStories, 2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish

 

[sojourner]

I do not damn anyone.

Dehumanization certainly damns certain groups to being less than human and, therefore, less than capable of receiving or returning God's love.

I do in fact believe that I have those answers.

Unfounded hubris.

I only know what God's laws are and what non-conformity with them means.

No, you believe what you've been told by people who are biased.

I do claim to understand God's will on certain issues.

Clearly, you don't understand, because you don't even understand that you're dehumanizing a whole group of people.

If I didn't make that claim, then I couldn't call my self a Mormon, could I? So there is no 'pride' here.

So, "all Mormons claim to know God's will for homosexuals." Correct?

The purpose of life (according to LDS doctrine) is that we come here to mortality to gain a body and to learn to control it. The purpose of the church is to provide those sealing ordinances having to do with eternal marriage to which a homosexual is not compatible.

"...Additionally, we learn to control others by imposing arbitrary and dehumanizing standards upon them."

I did care about my cousin, but he decided to act on his lusts contrary to God's law and there is nothing I can do about that but despair.

So, because he doesn't fit *your* scheme, you are incapable of caring about him anymore. Why? Why can't you care about him? Because you have made him somewhat less than human (and, therefore, beneath your compassion) through holding him to an arbitrary standard that you know he can't uphold.

And "all [you] can do is despair." And here I thought all along that "[you] can do anything through Christ..."

So, to sum up, you've created a moral fence between you and those you find "icky" that's purposefully too high for them to jump over, and then despair because they "choose" not to jump over it and come over to the "correct" side. Then, you absolve yourself of responsibility by putting the creation of the fence off on God. Then, you refuse to even feel sorry for those who have "chosen" to be "on the other side." But there's no hell! And that's, somehow, supposed to make us all feel better about you. Houston, we have a problem here.

 

[sojourner]

Norman, Hi JoStories, 2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish

This could be turned right around on you easily enough, O Christian Who Followeth the Teachings of Jesus, which saith, "You shall be judged with the same judgment with which you judge others." Oh, the vainness and the frailties and the foolishness of Mormons! When they are learned in the BoM, they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God [to love their fellow human beings], for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom [of dehumanization] is foolishness and it profiteth them not!

 

[Nada]

Really? That's all you have in answer to my questions?

Really? That's all you have in answer to my questions?

Yes.I understand you want your many questions answered, but I would rather not.I was replying to the OP,not you.It was a simple answer to a simple question.I'm not in the mood for 20 questions right now,thanks though.Have a great day.

 

[viole]

Why is the bible homophobic

Because the ones who wrote it were homophobic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[suncowiam]

Because the ones who wrote it were homophobic.

Ciao

- viole

And the ones that read it are homophobic.

 

[viole]

And the ones that read it are homophobic.

I read it, but I am not homophobic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ether-ore]

That's dehumanization -- the assertion that people aren't fully what some abstract and arbitrary standard says they "ought" to be. Which is precisely what Hitler did to the Jews, what the American South did to the blacks, and what the American Expansionists did to the First Nations.

To say that some human in not living up to their potential does not take away their humaity. I haven't lived up to my full potential, but I'm still human.

Homosexuals also aren't responsible for being who they are. God made them that way

I disagree that God made them that way. It is the nature of the physical body which our spirits inhabit to have lusts, desires and appetites, and yes even to same sex attraction. It becomes an issue when it is acted upon.

"God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” -- Gen 1:28 There is no "replenish."

I guess it is which version of the Bible one reads as to what it says. The KJV says: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ... "

Really?! Go to Delhi sometime and tell me that. Over 7 billion people disagree with you.

7 million people living on one city is not mismanagement? There aren't other places to live?

Your religious affiliation is no excuse for poor theology that leads to dehumanization.

Well, of course, that is a matter of opinion isn't it?

More important, it would seem, than the full humanity of all human beings.

No. But again, if someone rejects what God offers them, that doesn't make them less human, It just means that they have rejected what God has offered them.

Fecundity doesn't trump love of fellow hunan beings.

No. It doesn't, but the former cannot be ignored either.

According to you they can't be "sealed." Yes they can have children. Many homosexuals have natural children.

You do not know what you are talking about. Where besides in an LDS temple does anyone claim to be able to seal both on heaven and on earth? Where besides in an LDS temple does anyone claim to have the power to seal a man and his wife for time and all eternity? All other marriages that I know of are made "until death do you part". That homosexuals have children in mortality says nothing of their ability (or permission for that matter) to do that after this life is over in the eternities.

Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of Jews to not have blond hair and blue eyes. Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of blacks to not magically have European educations. Just as it appeared to be the natural consequence of First Nations people to not build brick houses and use porcelain.

The natural consequence I'm referring to has to do with what happens after this life.

You don't get to invent a theology that purposefully shuts out people from God's grace and then assert that it, somehow, magically, is some sort of absolute for humanity. To do so is to dehumanize those who don't "fit in."

From your point of view it may appear that I invented it, but my claim is that I did not.

Which is also dehumanization. If heteros (who are normal) get to act on their desires in responsible ways, then homosexuals (who [according to medical science] are also normal) get to act on their desires in responsible ways. To deny a group of people sexual expression is to dehumanize them.

The scriptures say God's laws don't agree with you.

Healthy sexual expression isn't some "base desire to be overcome." It's a gift from God, which your "fecundity theology" should fully embrace. What you've somehow managed to do is to differentiate between certain kinds of loving relationships, arbitrarily calling some "OK" and others "abnormal." Then you take the ones you've labeled as "abnormal" and lump them together with all of the unhealthy sexual acts, and justify that through some untenable theological position. If healthy, loving homosexual relationships need to be "overcome," then so do healthy, loving heterosexual relationships. Remember your basic algebra: whatever you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other side.

Healthy sexual expression is only allowed by God's law within the bonds of marriage between man and a woman. Even heterosexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman is forbidden by God's law.

Oh, no you don't! You don't get to slip in "lust" when you're referring to normal, healthy, homosexual relationships. That's another example of dehumanization. heterosexuals are capable of love. homosexuals are only capable of lust.

Wrong. Lust pertains to anyone. It is part of the human condition. But it is forbidden by God's law outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

You really need to take a closer look at what's flying under your moral radar.

I do see what is attempting to fly under the moral radar.

 

[sojourner]

Yes.I understand you want your many questions answered, but I would rather not.I was replying to the OP,not you.It was a simple answer to a simple question.I'm not in the mood for 20 questions right now,thanks though.Have a great day.

Fine. Pick up your marbles and go home, then.

 

[suncowiam]

I read it, but I am not homophobic.

Ciao

- viole

do you believe the bible, word for word?

 

[leibowde84]

And the ones that read it are homophobic.

You can't possibly believe this, can you? Many people who don't hold any religious beliefs and do not recognize any writings as "scripture" or indicative of the will of God read the Bible. It certainly isn't limited to people who grant it validity.

 

[viole]

do you believe the bible, word for word?

Nope. Biu that is not a precondition in order to be able to read it, is it? I also read Mickey Mouse when I was younger.

Ciao

- viole