Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[kmkemp]

He said that they were not married...

 

[Fluffy]

He said that they were not married...

I think he meant "having sex". In which case, it would follow from the view of homosexuality that was held at the time i.e. that there was no such thing as homosexuality and there was only men having sex with other men.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Do you eat shell fish? Have you lied?

You are correct. God hates lying -He says it so many times.

The ban on shellfish was to the Jews before Christ -no longer applicable.

Abomination!

Yes, but you're right: so is lying.

He destroyed a city for sodomy, though.

You know, I think the primary faux pas that people engage in when it comes to religion is asserting facts about the thoughts of a deity, when they cannot possibly know what they really are. Sure, you can claim something is the direct word of God, or what have you, but thousands of years of redaction in religious texts suggest otherwise.

Well I believe it's the Word of God, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

This post is so ignorant and offensive. I really feel sorry for you.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm washed in the blood.

Ignorance, again. The disease is believed to have spread from the butchering practices used in Africa on monkeys. Not by having sex with them.

Just more attempts by ignorant bigots to make the stigma of the disease more abhorred. You are a tool.

The religious people aren't bigots: they have a basis for their abhorrence of homosexuality (not homosexuals).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are correct. God hates lying -He says it so many times.

The ban on shellfish was to the Jews before Christ -no longer applicable.

Quoting 1 Timothy 4 from memory (so forgive me if I'm off a bit): "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer."

This is passage is given in response to a question about both forbidding marriages and denial of certain foods. Why should we only apply it to food, and not to marriage, as it seems to be intended to apply as well?

Actually, in the light of what comes before it, why shouldn't we at least consider that people who deny same-sex marriage (again, quoting from memory, so please forgive any small slip-ups) "have strayed from the faith, and have followed the teachings of deceiving demons, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron"?

He destroyed a city for sodomy, though.

Or for threatened gang-rape; the passage describing the incident allows for either interpretation. If you've conclusively decided that the destruction of Sodom was for consensual homosexual sex, then you're getting your material from somewhere other than the Bible.

Well I believe it's the Word of God, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

Except for the scriptures of just about every other religion.

The religious people aren't bigots: they have a basis for their abhorrence of homosexuality (not homosexuals).

There are a great many people who devoutly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and yet do not believe that homosexuality is sinful. For Christians to decide that they have a religious "basis for their abhorrence", they have to make a whole host of interpretations and decisions that are not necessarily requirements of their faith, or contained in any instruction thought to be from God. Holding up the Bible as a shield for intolerance is dirty pool; it's abdication of responsibility for choices that are made by the people that hold those opinions.

 

[Autodidact]

You are correct. God hates lying -He says it so many times.

The ban on shellfish was to the Jews before Christ -no longer applicable.

And yet it appears right next to the ban on homosexuality, which you think does still apply? How odd.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm washed in the blood.

Yuck.

The religious people aren't bigots: they have a basis for their abhorrence of homosexuality (not homosexuals).

The same basis as their non-abhorrence of shrimp eaters, apparently.

 

[gnomon]

true that, that's why smart people are LDS, (LDS church on average has a higher education level per member than the national average. whee):yes:

How absurd. Within any given population there are those who drag the mean down.

Know what I mean?

 

[Smoke]

Or for threatened gang-rape; the passage describing the incident allows for either interpretation.

Not really; according to the text, God decided to destroy the cities before the events at Lot's house; so whether the offense of the crowd was homosexuality, or inhospitality, or attempted rape, or whatever, it's really not relevant to the destruction of the cities.

However, the "men" of the city weren't just the adult males; the word doesn't mean men in that sense, but in the sense of human beings. When all the "men" of the city gathered at Lot's door, the crowd must have been about half women, and it's complete nonsense to talk as if this were a crowd of male homosexuals. It was a crowd of males and females, young and old. According to the story.

And then there's the foolishness of expecting anybody to take this as a factual story in the first place. Does anybody ever recall the previous chapter, in which Abraham is said to wash God's feet and serve Him bread and veal?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really; according to the text, God decided to destroy the cities before the events at Lot's house; so whether the offense of the crowd was homosexuality, or inhospitality, or attempted rape, or whatever, it's really not relevant to the destruction of the cities.

Yes, you're right. I guess the passage doesn't say at all why Sodom was condemned other than just "sin", does it?

And then there's the foolishness of expecting anybody to take this as a factual story in the first place. Does anybody ever recall the previous chapter, in which Abraham is said to wash God's feet and serve Him bread and veal?

Yes, there's that, too.

 

[gnomon]

Not really; according to the text, God decided to destroy the cities before the events at Lot's house; so whether the offense of the crowd was homosexuality, or inhospitality, or attempted rape, or whatever, it's really not relevant to the destruction of the cities.

However, the "men" of the city weren't just the adult males; the word doesn't mean men in that sense, but in the sense of human beings. When all the "men" of the city gathered at Lot's door, the crowd must have been about half women, and it's complete nonsense to talk as if this were a crowd of male homosexuals. It was a crowd of males and females, young and old. According to the story.

And then there's the foolishness of expecting anybody to take this as a factual story in the first place. Does anybody ever recall the previous chapter, in which Abraham is said to wash God's feet and serve Him bread and veal?

I think this is a good point and one in which our esteemed student Angellous had addressed. The story of Sodom and Gomorah is not one of homosexual sin but that of inhospitality. Not to mention that the extended story of Lot and that of his daughters supposedly engaging in sexual acts with their father includes information that they visited cities with a human population.

In other words, Sodom and Gomorrah has very little and practically nothing to do with sexual morality.

edit: Frubals.

 

[Smoke]

Yes, you're right. I guess the passage doesn't say at all why Sodom was condemned other than just "sin", does it?

Nope. However, the things that seem to enrage Yahweh above all others are idolatry, luxury, pride, and oppressing the poor, all of which Ezekiel hits on:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.​

 

[Luke_17:2]

And yet it appears right next to the ban on homosexuality, which you think does still apply? How odd.

There are several places in the Bible where sodomy is condemned -the ban on shellfish was exclusively in the Levitical law that is no longer, as far as Christians are concerned, necessary for salvation. Certain types of Jews still think so.

Yuck.

All you're doing is proving ignorance of the Bible, and obtuseness. You know that the term is metaphorical.

The same basis as their non-abhorrence of shrimp eaters, apparently.

Nope. Read the Bible before you refer to it.

 

[McBell]

Now divorce, that's unequivocally condemned. In the NT. By Jesus. In no uncertain terms. I never see Christians getting very upset about it. In fact, the group with the highest divorce rate in the U.S. are Protestant Christians.

Actually, divorce is allowed.
But ONLY in cases of fornication.

Which means that you are not allowed to get divorced because your spouse beats you unconcious every night.
However if they worship and idol, then divorce is fine and dandy.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Divorce is allowed, regardless of the reasons. The Bible simply advises you not to get remarried, but also says that if you do, you haven't sinned.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If there are laws banning sex with children, do you suggest it is ok for me the set that law aside and have sex with the 14 year old down the road?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

I guess I need to spell it out for you. I asked if folks should be in compliance with the law every time they had sex because in some states there are still sodomy laws.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ay, ay, ay...

Yes, it originated in sub-saharan Africa -where some sick people had sexual intercourse with monkeys. Those same sick people then spread it to the original victims of the disease in the US: gays.

And the statistic was true last I looked. It probably has changed by now, but that's why I said "last I looked." Sheesh.

Which brings us back to bestiality and the relevance to the conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Divorce is allowed, regardless of the reasons. The Bible simply advises you not to get remarried, but also says that if you do, you haven't sinned.

I don't get that from the Bible.

Matthew 5:31-32 (NIV):

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-6 (NIV):

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1 Corinthians 7:10-14 (NIV):

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

To sum up:

- divorce is forbidden in all cases except for marital infidelity. (Mat 5)
- not all divorces are permitted (implied); what is joined together by God should not be separated by man. (Mat 19)
- women must not be separate from their husbands; husbands must not divorce their wives. Believers married to unbelievers should stay married if at all possible. (1 Cor 7)
In light of these passages, what support do you have for your idea that divorce is allowed, regardless of reason?

 

[Reverend Rick]

OK, what does divorce have to do with the topic?

 

[Luke_17:2]

I Corinthians 7:27 says you haven't sinned if you remarry.

Look it up. I've been a Christian for 50 friggin' years, atheist. Don't get into a debate with me on the subject of what the Bible says about ANYTHING

 

[Luke_17:2]

Reverand Rick;

They're trying to make us look hypocritical, but they aren't able because I'm willing to bet we both know the Bible a lil' better then they.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Did it occur to anyone that the Lord might have made homosexuals to test the love and obedience of straight Christians by seeing how they react to them and how they treat them?

Perhaps it is not about homosexuals at all. It just may be about the Christians who condemn them.

Are Christians suppose to condemn? For one to condemn would mean they would have passed judgement. We are not to judge one another, that is our Lord's job not ours.

Homosexuality is a test on humanity. How you treat those you disagree with or abhor is the true test of the caliber of person you are.