The Bible and Homosexuality

[Ardhanariswar]

i think the bible was meant for people back then. i mean it was 2 thousand years ago. though many things apply yesterday and today, some people always take the literal meaning and apply it. scary. well. some of it. i know thier intention isnt false.

leviticus talkes about how a man should not lay with a man. but what about the context it was written it? how can people say that it was *the will* of God when it was written by man (with devine inspiration....).

sexuality in itself is not bad. anything can be good if it is used in the right way. i believe homosexuality is just as *good* as heterosexuality if they do not be prostitues (as well as straight people shouldnt) and start mating like bunnies (cuz we are smarter than that)...

other than that, i find no sin in homosexuality. and i believe God doesnt either.

homosesuality does not deter anyone from attaining heaven/spiritual enlightenment. because i believe that spirituality trancendes the physical and mental. i guess....

 

[anders]

i think the bible was meant for people back then

If only more people would realise that!

 

[Lightkeeper]

Touching on the aspect of procreation regarding homosexuality, homosexuality is only 10% of the population. Nature has a way of taking care of overpopulation, i.e. wars, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Maybe one purpose of homosexuality is to curb overpopulation. It beats wars.

 

[Pah]

Touching on the aspect of procreation regarding homosexuality, homosexuality is only 10% of the population. Nature has a way of taking care of overpopulation, i.e. wars, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Maybe one purpose of homosexuality is to curb overpopulation. It beats wars.

You get some "funny" numbers in nature. The homosexual male population of bighorn sheep is probabbly 90-95% of all males and they account for 100% of the self-sustaining bighorn population. The bonobo, both male and female, is 100% bisexual and they are a thriving species.. In Japan, the human homosexual male reproduces at a rate 83% of the heterosexual male. In America, both male and female humans, reproduce at about 50% of the heterosexiual population.

But the main benefit to society comes from the nurtuting of children abandoned by or in the homes of hetersosexual parents.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Touching on the aspect of procreation regarding homosexuality, homosexuality is only 10% of the population. Nature has a way of taking care of overpopulation, i.e. wars, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Maybe one purpose of homosexuality is to curb overpopulation. It beats wars.

You get some "funny" numbers in nature. The homosexual male population of bighorn sheep is probably 90-95% of all males and they account for 100% of the self-sustaining bighorn population. The bonobo, both male and female, is 100% bisexual and they are a thriving species.. In Japan, the human homosexual male reproduces at a rate 83% of the heterosexual male. In America, both male and female humans, reproduce at about 50% of the heterosexiual population.

But the main benefit to society comes from the nurtuting of children abandoned by or in the homes of hetersosexual parents.

Is this homosexual male reproduction based on male to male (or woman to woman) reproduction? Last time I heard that was not possible? What is the point you are trying to prove by the statement.

Let me give you some statistics:

(Again this is from the same Lutheran pastor's paper I mentioned earlier.)

" Gay unions are brief and many do not want to be “married.”
 The average homosexual (gay) “union” is 1.5 years.
 67% of “traditional” heterosexual relationships last 10 years.
 Men in gay relationships have an average of 8 partners per year.
 95% of gay unions have arrangements whereby each partner seeks sexual activity outside the bounds of their “union.”"

- Now does that look like a nurturing environment for children?

 

[Pah]

Touching on the aspect of procreation regarding homosexuality, homosexuality is only 10% of the population. Nature has a way of taking care of overpopulation, i.e. wars, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Maybe one purpose of homosexuality is to curb overpopulation. It beats wars.

You get some "funny" numbers in nature. The homosexual male population of bighorn sheep is probably 90-95% of all males and they account for 100% of the self-sustaining bighorn population. The bonobo, both male and female, is 100% bisexual and they are a thriving species.. In Japan, the human homosexual male reproduces at a rate 83% of the heterosexual male. In America, both male and female humans, reproduce at about 50% of the heterosexiual population.

But the main benefit to society comes from the nurtuting of children abandoned by or in the homes of hetersosexual parents.

Is this homosexual male reproduction based on male to male (or woman to woman) reproduction? Last time I heard that was not possible? What is the point you are trying to prove by the statement.

Let me give you some statistics:

(Again this is from the same Lutheran pastor's paper I mentioned earlier.)

" Gay unions are brief and many do not want to be “married.”
 The average homosexual (gay) “union” is 1.5 years.
 67% of “traditional” heterosexual relationships last 10 years.
 Men in gay relationships have an average of 8 partners per year.
 95% of gay unions have arrangements whereby each partner seeks sexual activity outside the bounds of their “union.”"

- Now does that look like a nurturing environment for children?

I would like to see the studies where this information is scientifically observed and the protcols of the study itself.

I do hope that you are not forgeting the other posts I made in response to your comments.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Those are national studdies used in the paper.

"If the argument is to overpowering, kill the sources that provide its basis."

 

[Pah]

Those are national studdies used in the paper.

"If the argument is to overpowering, kill the sources that provide its basis."

I'm terribly sorry. You gave no reference to the paper (a link for the paper) nor the pastor's name. As it stands, your assertions are unfounded. I replied to your earlier post regarding the "pastor" because I know that reputible science has joined in that conclusion and I possess a source that discusses it. I do not think that this latest data you provided s accurate. If the pastor's paper contains no citation of the actual study the conclusions will remain dubious.

All too often, the religious right will parrot inaccurate, misleading facts without proper citation and grounding in science.

 

[quick]

To the Christians in this post:

This is a no-win situation. There is not one reliable study suggesting homosexuality is outcome-determinative based on genetics or any congenital factor. The most reliable scientific evidence suggests its origins are envrionmental and psychological, but this does not make anyone happy as it suggests someone could receive drugs or counselling and affect the behavior, which homosexual activists strongly wish to avoid.

The Bible is subjected to tortured sophsitry to try to make it say (or not say) other than that which it clearly does on this topic. The Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are under attack by homosexual activists who seek to gut doctrine to suit their purposes.

Christians are ridiculed as not being tolerant and loving enough, although to tolerate everyting is to believe in nothing, and such ridicule demands that we turn our backs on our entire foundational document.

In the final analysis, as Christians, we must show love and kindness (but not indulgence) to the homosexual community, telling them that God will accept their repentance and offer them eternal life through the grace of Jesus Christ; that their sin is no worse--nor better--than any other, and is equally forgivable; that the only unforgivable sin is continued unbelief; and that we are happy to discuss salvation through Christ with them. We should also be willing to help those of them that are sick with their physical needs, as Christians have for so many over the centuries. Finally, we need to acknowledge that God is in control, his will shall not be thwarted, and all we can do is be faithful to him, and trust him to address the homosexual issue as he will in accordance with his perfect plan. Beyond this, there is really not much we can do.

The late Whittaker Chambers, noted communist atheist turned Christian, and homosexual turned monogamous heterosexual, would never have argued that homosexual behavior is mandated by any factor--through love, understanding, encouragement, and the will of God, anything is possible, including the homosexual's giving up the "life".

 

[Pah]

To the Christians in this post:

This is a no-win situation. There is not one reliable study suggesting homosexuality is outcome-determinative based on genetics or any congenital factor. The most reliable scientific evidence suggests its origins are envrionmental and psychological, but this does not make anyone happy as it suggests someone could receive drugs or counselling and affect the behavior, which homosexual activists strongly wish to avoid.

Sexual Orientation

The link contains several studies that show a genetic component of homosexuality and several that indicate an enviromental component. The are many secondary references to document the work from Evolution's Rainbow. It is on another board but registration is not required to view the thread and comments to the opening post. I would post it here but I am unsure of the limitations for length.

The Bible is subjected to tortured sophsitry to try to make it say (or not say) other than that which it clearly does on this topic. The Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are under attack by homosexual activists who seek to gut doctrine to suit their purposes.

When claims are made from a biblical source, it is very appropiate to verify that the meaning given in posts is, in fact, the truth of God's Word So far, it has been an unanswered question.

A slight correction - the Episcopal Church is mainline in favor of homosexual bishops. The "attack" is from those who do not want to stay.

Christians are ridiculed as not being tolerant and loving enough, although to tolerate everyting is to believe in nothing, and such ridicule demands that we turn our backs on our entire foundational document.

I have found on this board a large percentage of tolerant and loving Christians which is, indeed, the exception to other boards. I hope that I show respect for that and for the convictions that make you "you". I hope, also, that I am attacking a social policy and not an individual. I think it wrong to instill an interpretation of faith, which is not even universal within Christianity, as the "law of the land" - the highest authority for all citizens of this country. I, at least, do not think that Christianity should be "done away with" but that it should remain a personal convenant with your God and not a national one.

 

[Green Gaia]

Allow me to interrupt this discussion with a post that is a bit more on the emotional side, rather than the scientific path this thread has been taking.

While I remember the very place and time when at the age of five I became a Christian, there was never a single moment when I made a conscious choice to be a lesbian and I always take it with a mix of mild amusement and irritation when people will argue that it was a choice. My irritation is that people who don't live inside my own skin would be so arrogant as to presume they know what happened within me better than I do and the amusement is in those moments when I play with the thought of how fun it would be to call them some morning asking "So how am I feeling today?" They should know after all.

You can read the whole article here.

Thank you. :hi:

 

[Pah]

Allow me to interrupt this discussion with a post that is a bit more on the emotional side, rather than the scientific path this thread has been taking.

Bravo!! Not only is the article you cited a thoughtful, poignant piece but the rest of the web site promises it as well. I recommend that others continue reading the articles by clicking on the menu choice - the "Queering of Job" may catch some eyes and will definetly reward the reader well.

I must confess that I didn't think you were a woman. - the ID reminded me of some kind of obscure "macho" corn. Such is the anonimity of the internet. Sorry.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

I would agree with "quick" that this is a no-win situation. Here we have numerous lay people attempting to disect God's Word and apply human reason (which is flawed) to it. I cannot speak on something you refuse to try to understand and you flaunt with contempt. With this, I end my discussion on this forum thread.

 

[Pah]

I would agree with "quick" that this is a no-win situation. Here we have numerous lay people attempting to disect God's Word and apply human reason (which is flawed) to it. I cannot speak on something you refuse to try to understand and you flaunt with contempt. With this, I end my discussion on this forum thread.

I'm sorry that the answer I get is the question I asked.

Perhaps it is time to concluded the thread. While some Christians will say the Bible condemns homosexuality, others say that it does not and still others conclude the personal relationship with God is what counts. I personally find more "truth" in the latter two with a preference for the third.

As such, it seems that the Bible is in a poor position to chalange the secular interests of full equality for homosexuals.

 

[Bastet]

I must confess that I didn't think you were a woman. - the ID reminded me of some kind of obscure "macho" corn. Such is the anonimity of the internet. Sorry.

You must have missed the bottom few posts of page 3 then... :lol:

 

[Lightkeeper]

Thank you, Maize. Wonderful article.

 

[anders]

Here we have numerous lay people attempting to disect God's Word and apply human reason (which is flawed) to it.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have a forum only for the ordained clergy. Moreover, many of the post exhibit a deep and scholarly understanding of the Bible as well as of other religions. Nobody knows who has what education.
My dictionary explains "lay" as "Belonging to the laity as distinct from the clergy; not clerical". That would, for example, exclude professors of theology who are not ordained ministers. I think that a forum of this kind is a place for open discussion, criticism and endorsement of any religion from any kind of people in a friendly and tolerant way.

 

[Green Gaia]

I must confess that I didn't think you were a woman. - the ID reminded me of some kind of obscure "macho" corn. Such is the anonimity of the internet. Sorry.

LOL! No problem. Like I've said before, I'm not sure why I chose 'Maize' as a handle for this forum, but the anonimity of it surely appealed to me. But then again, right under my name it says I'm female.

I'm glad you liked the article and website.

 

[Pah]

" Gay unions are brief and many do not want to be “married.”
 The average homosexual (gay) “union” is 1.5 years.
 67% of “traditional” heterosexual relationships last 10 years.
 Men in gay relationships have an average of 8 partners per year.
 95% of gay unions have arrangements whereby each partner seeks sexual activity outside the bounds of their “union.”"

Despite a lack of sources for the data, I did some research and found simular information at the Family Research Council

The "standard" in which heterosexual data is presented centers on married couples while the data for homosexuals is based on a "dating" culture plus long term commitments. For a valid comparision, the heterosexual studies should have been on unmarried couples as well. How long does a "straight couple" live together? What is the average number of partners for a heterosexual male before and between marriages? How many heterosexual couples were faithful to a current partner outside of marriage.

Once you understand the bias, the numbers touted become more and more meaningless. But yet, they continue to make the rounds of the anti-homosexual Christian lobby. Wide and repeated dissemination of biased summary data is understood to sway the uninformed.

 

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

Just felt like expressing two little points here...

-THe Bible is accepted as the Word of God. But the Bible was literally written by man. So unless we can fully comprehend God ( if anyone can lemme know) we would not be ble to accurately express all of his intentions. And the views of the people at those time are going to be expressed in a way that tends to reflect their personal viewpoint.

-Let's go back to the darling old WWJD. Bible or no Bible... if Jesus were the dude that gives marriage licenses, do you see him refusing to give one to a homosexual couple? Cause franlky, I don't.