tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
God has genitalia?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why can't we have a relationship with other men?
- Thread starter davidthegreek
- Start date
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi tumbleweed41, why would you think He hasn't any? We have them and we are made in His image. He has hands, feet, arms, legs, a head, a backside, a frontside, a mind, a spirit, a heart, and I'm sure just about everything else that we have, so why not have genitalia? Don't you think G-d can make love? The thing of it is, I'm certain that He is not making love with the same sex, because if He is, that will cause mankind's extinction, and that would be an abomination (Lev 18:22). KB
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Does God evacuate his heavenly bowels?
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi Gjallarhorn, why wouldn't He? KB
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
No reason. Just wondering, as it's not a typical stance of any major religion.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What a bizarre non sequitur.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Because the suggestion that an infinite being beyond space and time would have a finite, physical, organic form is silly. The notion makes zero sense, and thus should be discarded. If he needs to defecate then that means he needs to eat. If he needs to eat then he can potentially starve.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
-insert "holy sh**" pun here-
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi FH, are you trying to put words in my mouth? Who said that G-d is finite, physical, and organic? You need to learn how the physical, finite, and organic is just a SHADOW of the overall elements that can be found in G-d. You should look to the physical to understand the Spiritual, for G-d is Spirit, not physical, but the physical teaches about His Spiritual characteristics. In the physical, what does a man use to make love with? I assure you that G-d has a Spiritual ONE. KB
Last edited:
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
To the OP, it's fairly easy to "justify" homosexuality from a Christian perspective. If you put it into the same category as any other sin then your practical approach needn't change any simply because it is prohibited. After all, the Christian salvation doesn't require you to behave any particular way in order to receive the benefits of salvation.
It doesn't get much clearer than the way it is written. It's written in two places and from my (what I would consider comparatively extensive) study of it there's no other way to interpret what's written than to mean that men should have sex with other men.
The question is, what counts as sex? I have heard many people argue that the Torah was referring to ritual practices with male prostitutes, but I don't think there's evidence to support that. When the Torah uses the wording used in the verses prohibiting homosexual sex in reference to straight people it almost always refers to an experience resulting in child-bearing. However, as gay men are incapable of intercourse in the exact same manner as with a woman, one would think the Torah would clarify.
As far as Jewish tradition goes, almost all sources say that the Torah prohibition is one on anal sex. That being said, I don't think it's improbable for two men to have a romantic relationship where public physical expressions of that were limited (as such would be immodest regardless of orientation). The community who has such a couple would then, in my opinion, be obligated to assume that they were both observing the Torah in all the ways that applied to them unless enough evidence were brought forth so as to convict the two. Given that such evidence is, essentially, impossible to bring, if we assume everyone does what they're supposed to be doing in private, then there's no reason to condemn a gay couple for being romantically involved as if they were engaging in prohibited behavior. Even if we might be able to drum up credible gossip speculating that they were.
I think that social biases and culture over the milennia are what led homosexuality to be where it is today. I find it hard to believe that Moses himself would have condemned two people for having strong feelings for one another just because they were of the same gender. Back in those days, having a relationship with a man would have been impractical and somewhat detrimental to the family lineage (as you wouldn't be producing children). Society at that time was probably less concerned about the feelings two people of the same gender had for one another than they were about reproduction. After all, in those days reproduction == larger family == more wealth/strength. Moreover, polygamy was something that was allowed leading me to believe that, again, sex was more about reproducing than it was about preserving any sense of purity to the act. The reproductive act, where a child is conceived, is certainly a holy thing. But sex wasn't necessarily special. Otherwise how does one justify polygamy?
Sex is almost always treated as a means to reproduction, not an act for enjoyment. How then, should we treat sex that is had for the sake of enjoyment? On this I believe the Torah is silent (but I'm no expert).
In our current times, your contribution to your family's line as far as children goes isn't as much a concern and given the size of the population reproduction is not nearly as much a concern. I believe that the majority of all the laws of the Torah concerning sex were based on this mindset that saw reproduction as being extremely important for the continuity of the Jewish people.
Granted, continuity of the Jewish people is still important however I think it's present-day manifestation and thus the approach of halacha must be different as well. We better understand the negative side-affects that come with denying one's sexual preferences over prolonged periods of times. If anything, that alone is enough to, in my opinion, alleviate a person of their obligation to reproduce as much as having a sexually transmitted disease would.
That doesn't place homosexual sex on the same level as heterosexual sex. I don't think it can be at the same level. But it does mean that we have no reason to condemn those who have relationships with people of the same gender nor to deny such couples recognition based on that fact.
It doesn't get much clearer than the way it is written. It's written in two places and from my (what I would consider comparatively extensive) study of it there's no other way to interpret what's written than to mean that men should have sex with other men.
The question is, what counts as sex? I have heard many people argue that the Torah was referring to ritual practices with male prostitutes, but I don't think there's evidence to support that. When the Torah uses the wording used in the verses prohibiting homosexual sex in reference to straight people it almost always refers to an experience resulting in child-bearing. However, as gay men are incapable of intercourse in the exact same manner as with a woman, one would think the Torah would clarify.
As far as Jewish tradition goes, almost all sources say that the Torah prohibition is one on anal sex. That being said, I don't think it's improbable for two men to have a romantic relationship where public physical expressions of that were limited (as such would be immodest regardless of orientation). The community who has such a couple would then, in my opinion, be obligated to assume that they were both observing the Torah in all the ways that applied to them unless enough evidence were brought forth so as to convict the two. Given that such evidence is, essentially, impossible to bring, if we assume everyone does what they're supposed to be doing in private, then there's no reason to condemn a gay couple for being romantically involved as if they were engaging in prohibited behavior. Even if we might be able to drum up credible gossip speculating that they were.
I think that social biases and culture over the milennia are what led homosexuality to be where it is today. I find it hard to believe that Moses himself would have condemned two people for having strong feelings for one another just because they were of the same gender. Back in those days, having a relationship with a man would have been impractical and somewhat detrimental to the family lineage (as you wouldn't be producing children). Society at that time was probably less concerned about the feelings two people of the same gender had for one another than they were about reproduction. After all, in those days reproduction == larger family == more wealth/strength. Moreover, polygamy was something that was allowed leading me to believe that, again, sex was more about reproducing than it was about preserving any sense of purity to the act. The reproductive act, where a child is conceived, is certainly a holy thing. But sex wasn't necessarily special. Otherwise how does one justify polygamy?
Sex is almost always treated as a means to reproduction, not an act for enjoyment. How then, should we treat sex that is had for the sake of enjoyment? On this I believe the Torah is silent (but I'm no expert).
In our current times, your contribution to your family's line as far as children goes isn't as much a concern and given the size of the population reproduction is not nearly as much a concern. I believe that the majority of all the laws of the Torah concerning sex were based on this mindset that saw reproduction as being extremely important for the continuity of the Jewish people.
Granted, continuity of the Jewish people is still important however I think it's present-day manifestation and thus the approach of halacha must be different as well. We better understand the negative side-affects that come with denying one's sexual preferences over prolonged periods of times. If anything, that alone is enough to, in my opinion, alleviate a person of their obligation to reproduce as much as having a sexually transmitted disease would.
That doesn't place homosexual sex on the same level as heterosexual sex. I don't think it can be at the same level. But it does mean that we have no reason to condemn those who have relationships with people of the same gender nor to deny such couples recognition based on that fact.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
You claimed that god defecates, which implies as much.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Hi TheKnight, I would like to reply to the above from what I just quoted from you. Sometimes, direct witnesses are not needed. Sometimes the perversion manifests itself through disease, and that manifestation becomes the witness to all.
I remember back in the 90's that my children's school had a blood drive. I'm not sure if any here have had any experience with giving blood, but back then, the questions you were asked about "men having sex with men" were so detailed and exhaustive, that if you even had sex with someone who somehow was involved with "men having sex with men," your blood was rejected.
Now, I know that much of this was from the Aids epidemic, which initally began in the U.S. as ONLY a male homosexual disease. I had a nephew who defended his homosexuality to me all the way up to where he was totally blind and died a horrible death in his early twenties from Aids. This made me really research into the Aids epidemic and I am convinced that Aids started in the U.S. from a group of male homosexuals in NYC who were given a vaccine for Hep B that was cultured in monkey serum. This Hep B vaccine was for coming into contact with human feces which was a rampant disease with the male homosexual community.
I'm bringing this up to show how that lifestyle produced disease which was manifested for everyone to see, so we don't really need witnesses in the bedroom. Now, how did this "men having sex with men" disease spread to the heterosexual community? Very simple, gay men having the disease had sex with other men that might have been drinking too much and they picked them up at a bar, or it might be that even some of the gay men would have had sex with women (also drug use and blood contamination contributed).
Some will argue that in Africa it stated as a heterosexual disease, and that is true. But the same Heb B vaccine was used there in some of the central African villages who had bad sanitary conditions which produced the Heb B virus. This Hep B vaccine is what I believed started Aids, and in the U.S. it was used on a group of male homosexuals who were at risk for the Hep B virus.
You see, time and history does not change the fact that "men having sex with men," causes disease:
Rom 1:27 (CEV)
(27) Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.
So TheKnight, the witness against homosexuality is the disease. Just Google, "Disease and men having sex with men," and see the witness to what goes on behind closed doors. And I have a homosexual niece who I love very much. She is a nurse and helps me extensively with my 92 year old father, and I will in no way condemn her, but I would hope she eventually sees the error of her way. KB
mayuboar
Member
stephan hawkings is a genius, but he certainly has his fair share of faults, for a religious site, its high in denial and low on honesty.
mayuboar
Member
and if one of your children were to bring home a consenting bonobo monkey you would be fine with that.
after all, you all believe as long as it does not hurt, its ok right.
physically a man sleeping with a man is no different then sleeping with any animal, if its consential, because the mans body is not made to be with a man no more then with anyother species.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I don't understand. You believe that genius IQ is not a fault but that homosexuality is a fault. Can you say why you think so?
Are you talking about the inability to reproduce? I have known many gay men who have had children. Most of them married young, had children, and only later figured out that they were gay. Anyway, with our overpopulation problems, I think that a few people not reproducing would be a very positive thing, like a genius IQ.
I always wonder why when discussing how acceptable homosexual relationships are, the ick factor tends to focus primarily on men having relationships with men, but lesbian relationships tend to be glossed over or ignored entirely.
What's up with that?
What's up with that?
No, there's nothing wrong with their "chemical makeup". Nature isn't black and white. Otherwise, you're saying that ALL forms of sexual activity besides heterosexual vaginal sex are the result of faulty "chemical makeup". So masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, etc. are all "against purpose" according to you. I think that's just a ridiculous way of looking at it.
Are you truly wondering or are you making a point? I'd venture to guess: A man can discuss lesbian women without considering his own gender or having his gender questioned, so discussing lesbians is probably more comfortable for men. I don't think its the same way for women, and I don't think that gay and lesbian psychology are identical. Its a different conversation.[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/mysticsang-ha-5236.html said:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I've been around long enough to understand they are certainly different conversations, but KT summed it up quite well - and hilariously - below: