sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"Women...
Can't live with 'em;
can't spank 'em."
I'm detecting a Motif here.
**cough [misogyny] cough**
-
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 did god create homosexuality?
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
Can't live with 'em;
can't spank 'em."
I'm detecting a Motif here.
**cough [misogyny] cough**
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. Sin is absence of relationship. Absence is not a creation. It's a lack of the same.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
except, same sex people cannot make babies. Then in that case, having a family can be having sisters, brothers and friends.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sin isn't a "consequence." It's a state of being brought about by lack of relationship with God.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, God doesn't ever say "homosexuality is a sin."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. The act is not sinful, either, within the bounds of proper relationship between people.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sin isn't "made."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Whether it's selfish or selfless is a pretty good benchmark.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So? Barren heterosexual couples can't have babies either.
[The members of "The People's Front of Judea" are sitting in the amphitheatre. Stan has just announced that he wants to be a woman and wants to be called "Loretta," and is explaining why.]
Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
From here:Life of Brian - Wikiquote
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
True. So, if they married for this purpose, which was the true purpose and cannot have babies, they should seek medical help.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"Having babies" is not the "true purpose" of marriage. The true purpose of marriage is relationship. Gen 2:18: "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper..."
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Infertile heterosexuals cannot have children either. Did you have a point?
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
What makes having babies the true purpose of marriage?
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Got any Biblical evidence to back that up?
Much of Jesus' message was about love, of course. But to interpret it as allowing homosexuality is a bit of a stretch. Jesus Himself said marriage is between a man and a woman. He made no exceptions.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Got lots of exegetical evidence. Since the biblical writers had no concept for homosexuality as an orientation, they would not have had Jesus include that orientation when he spoke of marriage.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
He makes a fair point and as it happens I've read a few exegetical works on homosexuality and the Bible
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Didn't they?
Clement of Alexandria, from the 2nd century, acknowledged that there were men who had a natural aversion to women, and were called to lives of celibacy and shouldn't marry. He said that these men were eunuchs from birth, much like how Jesus said in Matt 19:12.
Matthew 19:12 - For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Clement of Alexandria was not Jesus of Nazareth -- nor even the biblical writers. "Natural aversion to women" =/= "homosexual orientation." Jesus was not talking about homosexual orientation when he speaks of "eunuchs." And to say that he was is dishonest and naive.
C'mon, Sultan -- you're a better man than this!
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Sojourner maybe you know more about this than I do, but aren't some Greek scholars of the opinion the Roman general's servant Jesus healed of illness may have been his male lover?
If indeed he was Jesus didn't judge the Roman or discriminate
Either way homosexuality was normal in Roman society. You'd think Jesus could be specific if he opposed it
If indeed he was Jesus didn't judge the Roman or discriminate
Either way homosexuality was normal in Roman society. You'd think Jesus could be specific if he opposed it
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The homosexual act was more-or-less "normalized," although it usually involved older males taking advantage of young boys. But as an orientation, homosexuality was not recognized as "normal" until the DSM IV.