The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Drolefille]

I realize that the LGBT community keeps trying to liken their defining characteristic to things like skin color or gender but that's just not how the God of the Bible sees it. The God of the Bible does not view same sex attraction as one of the many wonderful variations he created in people such as different eye color, hair color or skin color. Truthfully, and this may sound harsh, if same sex attraction is indeed rooted in biology and brain chemistry, then to the God of the Bible, it's closer to a sickness. In other words, it is not something he originally intended for man to experience but came into history at the Fall of Man along with all the other forms of sickness and brokenness. To the God of the Bible, no amount of genetic predisposition can excuse behavior that he calls sinful.

If it's an illness then we're not responsible for it. I rather think though that God is responsible for everything he supposedly made and that you should probably phrase things so you're not claiming to speak for him or know his mind.

If god thinks his children are broken by being who they are, then I won't worship him. But then people claimed the god of the bible hated black people and stained their skin for it, so I suspect this is just a matter of opinion.



Jungle, how do you justify all the Christians, including entire denominations that disagree with you.

Also you didn't answer her question, you dodged. She asked nicely!

 

[Skwim]

never mind

 

[McBell]

I realize that the LGBT community keeps trying to liken their defining characteristic to things like skin color or gender but that's just not how the God of the Bible sees it.

Really?
And you know this how?

The God of the Bible does not view same sex attraction as one of the many wonderful variations he created in people such as different eye color, hair color or skin color.

Really?
And you know this how?

Truthfully, and this may sound harsh, if same sex attraction is indeed rooted in biology and brain chemistry, then to the God of the Bible, it's closer to a sickness.

Now since I know the Bible does not say any of this, I will have to ask you for your source...

In other words, it is not something he originally intended for man to experience but came into history at the Fall of Man along with all the other forms of sickness and brokenness. To the God of the Bible, no amount of genetic predisposition can excuse behavior that he calls sinful.

You make an awful lot of claims about god that the Bible does not support.

please let us in on your source.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

If it's an illness then we're not responsible for it. I rather think though that God is responsible for everything he supposedly made and that you should probably phrase things so you're not claiming to speak for him or know his mind.

If god thinks his children are broken by being who they are, then I won't worship him. But then people claimed the god of the bible hated black people and stained their skin for it, so I suspect this is just a matter of opinion.

Jungle, how do you justify all the Christians, including entire denominations that disagree with you.

I was attempting to speak for the CHRISTIAN God which is the God that is revealed to us in the Bible. I can't speak for all 100 million versions of "God" that people believe in. As far as the denominations that disagree, which are a small minority, I can't comment on their beliefs without knowing the scriptures they use to support them. As far as twisting the Bible to mean whatever you want, the reality is that you can only do that if you have no integrity.


edit: and which part of her post did I fail to address?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Really?
And you know this how?


Really?
And you know this how?


Now since I know the Bible does not say any of this, I will have to ask you for your source...


You make an awful lot of claims about god that the Bible does not support.

please let us in on your source.

You know about the Bible?

 

[McBell]

I was attempting to speak for the CHRISTIAN God which is the God that is revealed to us in the Bible. I can't speak for all 100 million versions of "God" that people believe in. As far as the denominations that disagree, which are a small minority, I can't comment on their beliefs without knowing the scriptures they use to support them. As far as twisting the Bible to mean whatever you want, the reality is that you can only do that if you have no integrity.

Yet none of what you spewed in the name of the god of the bible is supported by the bible....

Let the twisting and assumptions begin.....

 

[McBell]

You know about the Bible?

Don't tell me, let me guess...
Here once again you are going to make all sorts of bull **** claims and then refuse to present your source, right?

Even though you were flat out asked for your source...

 

[McBell]

You know about the Bible?

Hells bells, I am not even asking for a "reliable" source...
just the source where you got it from...

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yet none of what you spewed in the name of the god of the bible is supported by the bible....

Let the twisting and assumptions begin.....

I want to see a post from you that's longer than 2 sentences. That way I know that if I put the work in to give you Biblical support, you'll actually give it more than 10 seconds of thought. I want to be impressed by your Biblical knowledge, or at the very least respect it. Tell me what you think the God of the Bible has to say on this subject of one's identity and homosexuality.

 

[McBell]

I want to see a post from you that's longer than 2 sentences. That way I know that if I put the work in to give you Biblical support, you'll actually give it more than 10 seconds of thought. I want to be impressed by your Biblical knowledge, or at the very least respect it. Tell me what you think the God of the Bible has to say on this subject of one's identity and homosexuality.

As soon as you can produce a post worth more than 2 sentences...


I shan't hold my breath...


The fact is that the Bible never explains why god says that a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination.
So any and everything you come up with to explain why god claims it an abomination is nothing more than a wild shot in the dark assumption on your part.

 

[nnmartin]

If it's an illness then we're not responsible for it. I rather think though that God is responsible for everything he supposedly made

if that were the case then what would be the point in any religion as you could simply the 'blame' everything on God?

If god thinks his children are broken by being who they are, then I won't worship him.

no surprise there then

But then people claimed the god of the bible hated black people and stained their skin for it, so I suspect this is just a matter of opinion.

except the Bible explicitly states it's position on homosexuality many times.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As soon as you can produce a post worth more than 2 sentences...


I shan't hold my breath...


The fact is that the Bible never explains why god says that a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination.
So any and everything you come up with to explain why god claims it an abomination is nothing more than a wild shot in the dark assumption on your part.

Tell me what you think the Bible has to say about our identity. If you can tell me that, then you'll understand my view on the God of the Bible and why I attribute certain things to him.

 

[nnmartin]

The fact is that the Bible never explains why god says that a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination.
So any and everything you come up with to explain why god claims it an abomination is nothing more than a wild shot in the dark assumption on your part.

wow!

finally more than a 2 line post from Mestemia - things are looking up!

whatever next?

 

[McBell]

Tell me what you think the Bible has to say about our identity. If you can tell me that, then you'll understand my view on the God of the Bible and why I attribute certain things to him.

How about you provide the source for your bold claims?

I suspect that you want really desperately to say it is the Bible.
The problem you run into with claiming the Bible for your source is that you yourself will fall into the "no integrity" pit you set up earlier.

 

[McBell]

whatever next?

You actually produce a post worth two sentences?

 

[Revoltingest]

...the Bible explicitly states it's position on homosexuality many times.

From what I hear from its adherents, there appears to be much leeway in how to how to react to homos.
To allow them much freedom to be this way (in spite of prohibition) also appears to comport with the Bible.

(Reminder note: "Homo" just seems a nice abbreviation. No connotations intended.)

 

[-Peacemaker-]

How about you provide the source for your bold claims?

I suspect that you want really desperately to say it is the Bible.
The problem you run into with claiming the Bible for your source is that you yourself will fall into the "no integrity" pit you set up earlier.

It has nothing to do with not being willing or able to provide Biblical references. It has everything to do with WHO IS ASKING. Your typical post is only two lines and the amount of thought you put into it is probably two seconds. You make no effort whatsoever to demonstrate that you've engaged the material that people give you to read. You don't comment on any main points, themes or anything specific for that matter. You make no effort to communicate that you at least understand where the person is coming from, even if you disagree. If you disagree you make no effort to communicate why. You basically use one of three responses.

If you simply disagree with something you say:

Argument "X" is bull ****

If you feel a little stronger about it you say:

Argument "X" is a pile of bull ****

And when you REALLY feel strongly about it you say:

Argument "X" is a steaming mountain of bull ****

A second grade audience might find those "arguments" compelling but you'll have to do a little better if you want to be taken seriously here

 

[Meow Mix]

I realize that the LGBT community keeps trying to liken their defining characteristic to things like skin color or gender but that's just not how the God of the Bible sees it.

Okay, but this isn't answering the fundamental questions I was asking. This is about bigotry.

If the Bible did command death for defining characteristics like skin color, would you consider that to be bigoted?

If yes, then why doesn't the bigotry against homosexuals raise your eyebrows?

You see, it seems like in some peoples' minds it's "okay" for the Bible to rip on homosexuality because somehow that's "different" from ripping on, say, black people. But that really doesn't get to the heart of the matter: why is it okay to condemn homosexuals to death without question?

It seems like you would object if it were commanding to kill black people simply for being black. For some reason, that seems unfair.

Well, why wouldn't you object if it's commanded to kill homosexuals simply for being homosexual? Why is that so much more "okay" than commanding racist bigotry?

The God of the Bible does not view same sex attraction as one of the many wonderful variations he created in people such as different eye color, hair color or skin color. Truthfully, and this may sound harsh, if same sex attraction is indeed rooted in biology and brain chemistry, then to the God of the Bible, it's closer to a sickness. In other words, it is not something he originally intended for man to experience but came into history at the Fall of Man along with all the other forms of sickness and brokenness. To the God of the Bible, no amount of genetic predisposition can excuse behavior that he calls sinful.

So, that god wants homosexual people to just never know the joys of loving their lovers completely, and being able to seal their affection for one another with intimacy?

Why not?

What about homosexuality has moral connotations -- what about it hurts God? Forgive me for saying this, but I can't imagine how petty and weak a so-called "divine being" would have to be in order to be harmed or offended by how consenting adults -- who aren't harming anybody -- share their affection for one another.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Okay, but this isn't answering the fundamental questions I was asking. This is about bigotry.

If the Bible did command death for defining characteristics like skin color, would you consider that to be bigoted?

If yes, then why doesn't the bigotry against homosexuals raise your eyebrows?

You see, it seems like in some peoples' minds it's "okay" for the Bible to rip on homosexuality because somehow that's "different" from ripping on, say, black people. But that really doesn't get to the heart of the matter: why is it okay to condemn homosexuals to death without question?

It seems like you would object if it were commanding to kill black people simply for being black. For some reason, that seems unfair.

Well, why wouldn't you object if it's commanded to kill homosexuals simply for being homosexual? Why is that so much more "okay" than commanding racist bigotry?




So, that god wants homosexual people to just never know the joys of loving their lovers completely, and being able to seal their affection for one another with intimacy?

Why not?

What about homosexuality has moral connotations -- what about it hurts God?

Do you understand that God, even in the OT, isn't condemning people because they are attracted to people of the same gender? It's the act that he condemns.

 

[Antiochian]

Other than the fact that in the view of many, it's mere human literature from a specific time and place that's no more inspired than a George Orwell novel or the latest edition of Time magazine, and other than the face Christians have never uniformly agreed on the very canon of scripture itself, there's the problem with the Bible as a source of truth:

You Christians don't even agree on what it says! Catholics look at Luke 22.19 and John 6.51-56 and see transubstantiation. I'm guessing you don't, assuming you're non-Catholic. Calvinists pull up verses "proving" that God has predestined some to damnation and some to salvation. Arminians can "prove" otherwise. Premillenialists, postmillenialists, amillenialists, etc. all have Bible verses "proving" their views. Shoot, Martin Luther didn't like the Epistle of James, and considered "editing" it out of the canon. Additionally:

Notice a change he admitted to regarding Romans 3:28:

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).


source: Martin Luther Changed and/or Discounted 18 Books of the Bible
​

And of course, scholars have different ideas regarding the meaning of anti-gay "clobber passages." Some will say those verses condemn homosexuality, end of discussion. Others say the OT passages are about ritual cleanness, or this or that. They say the NT passages are about temple prostitution. That they have nothing to do with same-sex relationships as understood today.

The Bible, frankly, is ambiguous--its meaning relative to whomever happens to be reading and explicating it at any given moment. One person's exegesis is another person's "heresy." Like the great reformer Luther, Christians today just cherry pick what suits their whims.

​