What's God's Big Problem with Homosexuality?

[First Baseman]

Also, if we can't shave your head and force feed you cow urine for beef consumption, be. Careful in saying who should follow your religious laws and morals.

I am careful to point out that I believe that it is only correct to obey Jesus and His teaching. Everything else is false doctrine is our belief. There is only one way into heaven that is Jesus Christ.

 

[Demonslayer]

I doubt that 1/10rd of the people in the west will know about Shaktism, Vajrayana Buddhism or even Nataraja...

I think you might be surprised, but I've always been interested in religion so who knows.

So, not everyone in the world lives in the west and has a Christian majority

I think the major difference is, the Catholic Church is centralized in Italy not "the West" and has members all over the world.

nor is everyone obsessed about Hillary Vs Trump.

LOL

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what do you say a homosexual is? Someone that has sex with the same sex SOMETIMES?

Homosexuals can't reproduce together. I'm pretty sure if they mix and matched their sexual preferences that would make them bisexual - wouldn't it?

The point I was getting as is that sleeping with the same sex is no less likely to result in procreation than celibacy is.

How someone who doesn't sleep with the opposite sex spends their time - whether it's gardening, same-sex sexual acts, or prayer - is completely irrelevant to procreation.

 

[Ingledsva]

Eh.....

I see it now but disagree with the reasoning.

Male and female is essential to life.

Interestingly the Hebrew seem to have originally Worshiped a Goddess and God.

I believe this is why we get Elohiym creating in THEIR image, male and female, in Gen 1. We don't get a singular named Elohiym until the added secondary story in Gen 2.

Gen 1:26 And the Elohiym said, Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So the Elohiym created man in their own image, in the image of Elohiym created they him; male and female created they.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that YHVH Elohiym made the earth and the heavens,

*

 

[Ingledsva]

The problem is that you have a problem with the authority of God.

God created men and women.

God set the rules.

You object.

Tobad!!!!

LOL! We have a problem with mistranslation, and fudging of info, by the church.

*

 

[Skwim]

From what I've heard, homosexual acts are not normal and only leads to unfullfillment of our roles as men and women.

So what if homosexual acts are not normal and don't lead to the fulfillment of "our roles as men and women"? What is the harm? And, what is this "fulfillment" you deem so imperative?

Men naturally are atrracted to women and vice versa so to disrupt this natural order would be an abnormality.

What disruption is this, and what form does it take? And consider, if homosexuality isn't a natural state of affairs, as you imply, then neither is left-handedness.

In any case, by your lack of reply to my question regarding god's reason for condemning homosexual acts as abominations and vile affections, I'm taking it that you know of none.


.

 

[Ingledsva]

HEY! I represent that remark! As I kid we had to pick cherries for desert !
Nothing wrong with picking cherries.
No one calls an apple harvester and apple picker!
American Pickers is a fun to watch t-v show.
No one jokes about American Pickers????????????????????????????????????

My cherry, and apple trees, are in bloom right now. I can hardly wait for the fruit.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Okay, then let me rephrase, how did you come to the conclusion that God doesn't feel the need to explain? Surely you've heard numerous pastors talk about homosexuality being a choice. If you don't think that those pastors are representing God well then that's your right, but then don't say that God doesn't feel the need to explain Himself. I think that on this matter He has.

I don't believe pastors represent God, or even what the Bible actually says, in some cases, such as so-called homosexuality verses.

*

 

[Skwim]

The Bible defines homosexuality by lust

Really? So we should assume this lust is somehow different from the lust of the heterosexual. It's okay for the heterosexual to lust but not the homosexual because _____________________________________________________fill in the blank______________ .

My point is
because there are none, there are many homosexuals that do NOT lust for each other, kill, abuse, and rape and all that mess.

Hold it. You just got done saying that lust defines homosexuality, and now you're saying that "many homosexuals . . . do NOT lust." If lust defines homosexuality then how can these people be homosexuals if they don't lust?

They are not homosexuals according to the bible because the Bible defines it differently.

But you just said the Bible defines homosexuality as lust.

We define it as a sexual orientation. The Bible defines it as an action.

No, the Bible uses it to describe, not define, the activity between homosexuals.


.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It sounds like you are Christian or something. I just think your argument is misplaced.

Really? So we should assume this lust is somehow different from the lust of the heterosexual. It's okay for the heterosexual to lust but not the homosexual because

Please, no sarcasm.

Hey, it's in the Bible. I am just telling you what it teaches not what I agree with nor think of as a fact.

Hold it. You just got done saying that lust defines homosexuality, and now you're saying that "many homosexuals . . . do NOT lust." If lust defines homosexuality then how can these people be homosexuals if they don't lust?

Okay, I will make this personal. I just want you to understand my point. You don't have to agree. I like the words "you know, I haven't seen it that way and I disagree."

1. If I were Christian, my love I would have for my friend or wife would be defined as lust not love. That is how the Bible says it in both context and content. I cannot deny that if I were a Christian. Do I agree? (Since I am not, I do not agree). If I were, I'd have to.

a. Why? In most relationships and marriages some people lust over each other. It is human nature. It is natural. However, if I were Christian, I cannot lust over my friend nor can I my wife. It is against scripture.

2. Yes, some of us do not lust. I am no different than a heterosexual beside me. I don't care for generalizations nor, as a homosexual, like being put into a box. However, if I were Christian, that is exactly what the Bible does.

No, the Bible uses it to describe, not define, the activity between homosexuals.

We can use describe, if you like. That doesn't make it right that the activity between two people (heterosexual, homosexual, or not) who are of the same gender is not against the Bible. It is.

I don't know how other churches for homosexuality base their beliefs on, however, I came from two denominations that profoundly gave good reasons why and how the Bible sees homosexuality.

1. It is a culture thing
2. It is a context
3. It's in scripture

Like any other main religion, the culture or customs of that society are built into the teachings of their books. The Bible is not excluded.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, taking all this into consideration, what do you think might be behind god's reason for hating homosexual acts so much, considering them to be abominations and vile affections?

It's based on three (of many) things

1. It's cultural
2. It's contextual
3. It's content

It's cultural.

I remember going to confession a couple of years ago. I sat with the priest for I think two and a half hours or so talking about scripture. He is from Gana and he was talking about how people would come down to the water because they believed certain spirits "lived" in the water. That's where they got life from.

In many cultures, as he continued, it is not like the U.S.,, parents "set their child up" for marriage. Sometimes at infancy. It is always between male and female. Not the same sex. The point was to continue on the family line.

In my and many families around the world, it is also to continue on the family name to the first male of the male/female family.

When you read the Bible, every story that involved a married person, that person was always married to a person of his or her opposite sex. No matter how many concubines they had, their wife or husband was always married to the opposite gender never the same gender. It is all cultural.

The Church continues on this tradition (putting details and paganism claims aside for now; that's not my point) of male and female as well as the role of the male in Christ's Church. Christ is married to a female (The Church), not a male. and so on and so forth.

It is contextual
All the verses against homosexuality in the Bible are seen in context not in content.

1. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

When a man and a woman lie together (say in a marriage), by god/scripture that is seen as holy. Anything outside of this union is not holy. Hence the scripture above.

If anyone sleeps with another man as he would with a woman (like a marriage), it is wrong. In this context, homosexuality (the sex between same gender individuals) is wrong.

2. 10. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Here it is point out that same-sex is not natural. Women and men (GBLTQIAS-whatever/humans) were all at that time going against their own nature as above and in Sadaam, and other places where they committed such sins.

3, 1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Another contextual scripture. Scripture is saying that man should be with his wife. No where does it approve man should be with his husband. Doing so, especially after marriage, is an abomination. Why? Because consummating one's love involves sexual activity. Sexual activity between two men or two women according to the Bible without regards of how the relations betwen the two are, is wrong.

4. and so on and so forth

It's by content

The only couple of verses that are not based on context is that of marriage. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. No biblical scripture shows otherwise because marriage is also for procreation. When you tie the knot, it isn't just sexual contact, they mean natural intercourse.

List of marriage verses



I do not agree with any of this. However, I can't change the Bible or any other book just because I disagree with it's morals. Especially when it is not my faith to begin with.

 

[Skwim]

Please, no sarcasm.

No sarcasm at all. I'm quite serious. You say the bible defines homosexuality as lust, which, in light of heterosexual lust, makes no sense.

Hey, it's in the Bible. I am just telling you what it teaches not what I agree with nor think of as a fact.

Evidently we're reading the passage on lust and homosexuality

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.​

very differently. As I read it, the lust simply denotes the extent of the passion two men have for each other: very strong sexual desire.

Okay, I will make this personal. I just want you to understand my point. You don't have to agree. I like the words "you know, I haven't seen it that way and I disagree."

1. If I were Christian, my love I would have for my friend or wife would be defined as lust not love. That is how the Bible says it in both context and content. I cannot deny that if I were a Christian. Do I agree? (Since I am not, I do not agree). If I were, I'd have to.

a. Why? In most relationships and marriages some people lust over each other. It is human nature. It is natural. However, if I were Christian, I cannot lust over my friend nor can I my wife. It is against scripture.

2. Yes, some of us do not lust. I am no different than a heterosexual beside me. I don't care for generalizations nor, as a homosexual, like being put into a box. However, if I were Christian, that is exactly what the Bible does.



We can use describe, if you like. That doesn't make it right that the activity between two people (heterosexual, homosexual, or not) who are of the same gender is not against the Bible. It is.

I don't know how other churches for homosexuality base their beliefs on, however, I came from two denominations that profoundly gave good reasons why and how the Bible sees homosexuality.

1. It is a culture thing
2. It is a context
3. It's in scripture

Like any other main religion, the culture or customs of that society are built into the teachings of their books. The Bible is not excluded.

Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.


.

 

[First Baseman]

LOL! We have a problem with mistranslation, and fudging of info, by the church.

*

Sure you do. You have problems but none of them are the fault of any church.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No sarcasm at all. I'm quite serious. You say the bible defines homosexuality as lust, which, in light of heterosexual lust, makes no sense.

Yes, I know. It makes no sense. That's what scripture says-culture and context.

It's saying "heterosexual sex is alright if it is in the bonds of marriage. Once its in the bonds of marriage, then lust is natural"

It also says "any two people--GBLTIAQS/human--who lust over people of their own gender are committing a homosexual act. That homosexual act (homosexuality) is an abomination and against god and his natural law.

The Bible shines a light on male/female but not male/male and female/female

I accepted that after I talked with a good amount of priest, studied the Bible, and accepted that this culture and faith is not my own.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure you do. You have problems but none of them are the fault of any church.

I have shown the mistranslation errors, and straight out fudging in translations, many times.

*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there is a god, I just do not see how this entity could have a problem with homosexuality. It's a rather trivial issue. However, it far more likely that men who have a problem with homosexuality will claim to be speaking on god's behalf, which is probably also why pagan practices and women on their period aren't held in high regards by "god."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He used to post here? I know that's a joke, but seriously...?

As with most jokes, there is a kernel of truth behind it.
When talking about God communicating to us, the following happens;

1) One group of people argue that an omnipotent God can make his will known any time he wants, and as clearly as he wants. In that sense, he's not communicating with us, and doesn't care to.
2) A separate group of people argue that God communicates with us constantly, and there is simply a lack of listening or understanding on behalf of the person not hearing the message.

That discussion typically leads exactly nowhere.

 

[Blastcat]

While I strongly disagree with the Biblical rules on homosexuality myself, I have no idea how you're expecting anyone who supports those rules to chime in here when your post is already full of snark and condescension toward those people. It seems to me that you are looking for someone to mock or show as a fool, not for discussion or inquiry.

In Arabic we sometimes call people who do this "the disputant and the judge," meaning that the same person who starts a dispute is also the one who acts as the judge. More than a little lopsided scenario, I would say.

Nice avoiding.

 

[Blastcat]

How did you come to the conclusion that God never explains Himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that God ever does.. or that God exists, or that any of this is meaningful?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

There is no need. Since I only believe in the one God I don't have to be specific since it's obvious who I'm talking about. If you like you can say Jehovah or Elohim but it's redundant since there is only one God and no others in any Christian's faith.

There is a need.
And I thought English is your first language.... Unless you are trying hard to be suffocatingly obtuse.
Also Elohim which means multiple Gods is the single God of the Bible? Lol.
This is where we part ways...