Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[Shermana]

If the problem here is a Semantic argument about the modern concept of "Gay" and "Orientation", then we see that Jesus says to not even Lust lest you commit adultery in your heart, so if you're trying to avoid the discussion about the forbidden practices and want to focus only on the orientation, even having lustful thoughts is a sin, so good luck trying to tell gays not to have lustful thoughts even if they aren't acting on them.

The message isn't that gays and lesbians are sinful. Not at all. It is that we are all sinful. And because of that, we shouldn't judge anyone.

Do you have any commentary that says that the purpose was to tell people to not judge anyone? I think it's quite the opposite in exhorting people to judge those who commit such offenses.

we still only have one example of Paul focusing on the subject, and it only amounts to a couple of verses.

Paul also uses the term "dogs" to describe them in a list of people who won't enter the Kingdom. (A common term for a receiver). "Dogs" doesn't necessarily refer to temple prostitutes.

 

[fallingblood]

If the problem here is a Semantic argument about the modern concept of "Gay" and "Orientation", then we see that Jesus says to not even Lust lest you commit adultery in your heart, so if you're trying to avoid the discussion about the forbidden practices and want to focus only on the orientation, even having lustful thoughts is a sin, so good luck trying to tell gays not to have lustful thoughts even if they aren't acting on them.

That applies to everyone. Good luck trying to not have lustful thoughts yourself.

Do you have any commentary that says that the purpose was to tell people to not judge anyone? I think it's quite the opposite in exhorting people to judge those who commit such offenses.

Why would I need a commentary to state something that should be obvious? I mean, if you read the verses in chapter two, that go right after Paul's vice list, he states don't judge others.

Paul also uses the term "dogs" to describe them in a list of people who won't enter the Kingdom. (A common term for a receiver). "Dogs" doesn't necessarily refer to temple prostitutes.

Where does Paul do such a thing?

 

[Shermana]

That applies to everyone. Good luck trying to not have lustful thoughts yourself.

Thanks but I don't think you get the point. If you don't deny that their behavior is already prohibited, then their very orientation is prohibited too. Is it possible to have such an "orientation" without the thoughts and lusts that go with it? If so, what's the point of the concept of "orientation"?

Why would I need a commentary to state something that should be obvious? I mean, if you read the verses in chapter two, that go right after Paul's vice list, he states don't judge others.

Translation: You can't find anyone else who agrees with your out of context interpretation. Let's look at what Paul says:

3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?


Ummmmm, looks like Paul is saying to not be a hypocrite if you are ALREADY DOING THAT TOO. His warning is for other man-bedders to not judge other man-bedders. Otherwise, the very nature of 1:26 is to give the reader a sense of condemning the action.

Where does Paul do such a thing?

One second. Await edit. I may be mistaken in confusing it with Revelation that calls them "dogs" who are prohibited from entering the New Jerusalem. I thought I saw a translation which uses "dogs" for "Man-bedders" let me recheck. Regardless, Paul says that "Man-bedders" are not going to the Kingdom. How is "Man-bedder" not a flat out orientation? I've also seen people try to say it only refers to Male Temple Prostitutes, which is wholly untrue, it CAN refer to them but not necessarily exclusively.

Interestingly, the man-happy Romans had a similar attitude towards the "receivers" of homo-relations.

http://concordances.org/hebrew/6945.htm

 

[idav]

No, it singles out straight people practicing homosexual acts. There is no suggestion that these people are gay or lesbian. But instead, that they purposely make a decision to go against what would be natural for them. As in, they were straight, and then decided to participate in homosexual acts.

Not to mention, none of that matters, as to focus on that small passage, and ripping it from the actual message. The message isn't that gays and lesbians are sinful. Not at all. It is that we are all sinful. And because of that, we shouldn't judge anyone.

More so, even if we do rip this out of context, and focus on just that small portion, we still only have one example of Paul focusing on the subject, and it only amounts to a couple of verses. That hardly constitutes someone who is very opposed to it.

None of that was about the orientation though, god making you do something is a bit much. In context of the text, he starts with faith and warns what will happen if you don't keep it. He isn't saying everyone sins, he is singling out lack of faith.

 

[s2a]

is arachnaphobia an intollerance of spiders?

I would deem irrational fear as an equivalence of intolerance, yes.

"Thou shalt not suffer a spider to live"

 

[s2a]

I don't believe God created homosexuality, at all (perhaps in special cases).

Wow. Got any “special case” examples that come to mind?

He created Adam and Eve. There's a clue there, that isn't sufficient for an increasing number of people.. He put the female with the male. He didn't ask Adam whether he wanted a female. Adam awoke and there she was. The female sufficiently complimented the male, as far as God decided. We can get into the dynamics of the entire Adam and Eve story later.

Oh, I get it now… Eve as crafted from Adam’s rib overnight is entirely logical and plausible as to the origins of humanity… and evidently, the essence of "moral" (as intended) heterosexuality. Until of course there was more than one dude around as a result of Eve fornicating with her offspring. That would hardly produce any psychological conflicts, now would it?

I guess the only thing worse than that would be to produce both male and female offspring as a result of having sex with dear Mom, and then watching your own daughter and son produce spawn derived from a pairing of mother and son at the start? That wouldn’t be weird, would it?

But aside from that.. I'm really not for an argumentative discussion. It often solves very little if anything at all.

Well, first of all, you chose willingly to engage the topic. No fair tossing a grenade then running away to escape the consequences of that act. If you have nothing to add, then you insulate yourself from any further arguments, there fore fulfilling your own prophecy of acquiring any prospective resolution. Well done.

I want to remove that from the forefront and get to understanding first. So, I'll ask a question. What is homosexuality? Do your absolute best to explain it for me. Why does it occur?

Tell you what. If you can definitively define heterosexuality as you would explain it, then perhaps we might then better understand what it is not?

As for homosexuals being people, like the rest of us, capable of doing deeds on both ends of the spectrum.. I have no disagreement whatsoever. However, what is innate in me or you, may not always be what is right. I am able to look at the faults I may, or may not have, been born with and recognize them as faults. I also recognize that some may not even have that ability. The discussion about homosexuality extends beyond sexuality, and perhaps we'll get into that as well.

*blink* *blink*

 

[Sleeppy]

Wow. Got any “special case” examples that come to mind?

Oh, I get it now… Eve as crafted from Adam’s rib overnight is entirely logical and plausible as to the origins of humanity… and evidently, the essence of "moral" (as intended) heterosexuality. Until of course there was more than one dude around as a result of Eve fornicating with her offspring. That would hardly produce any psychological conflicts, now would it?

I guess the only thing worse than that would be to produce both male and female offspring as a result of having sex with dear Mom, and then watching your own daughter and son produce spawn derived from a pairing of mother and son at the start? That wouldn’t be weird, would it?

Well, first of all, you chose willingly to engage the topic. No fair tossing a grenade then running away to escape the consequences of that act. If you have nothing to add, then you insulate yourself from any further arguments, there fore fulfilling your own prophecy of acquiring any prospective resolution. Well done.

Tell you what. If you can definitively define heterosexuality as you would explain it, then perhaps we might then better understand what it is not?

*blink* *blink*

If anyone noticed, here's an example of my point. An argumentative attitude with no understanding of what was said.. or even the religious foundation it stems from. Let's not waste our time with each other. Thanks.

 

[s2a]

If anyone noticed, here's an example of my point. An argumentative attitude with no understanding of what was said.. or even the religious foundation it stems from. Let's not waste our time with each other. Thanks.

Agreed. Your rebuttal is to impugn me as dull and and argumentative. You have nothing to offer in counterpoint.

I'll leave it to others to determine what may example a lack of understanding best and foremost.

The defense rests...

 

[fallingblood]

None of that was about the orientation though, god making you do something is a bit much. In context of the text, he starts with faith and warns what will happen if you don't keep it. He isn't saying everyone sins, he is singling out lack of faith.

He is definitely saying all sin, and that is a common theme in Romans.

 

[sojourner]

I don't have a problem with the word bigot since most people who use the term are bigger bigots. I will proudly call myself a "bigot" since by definition I have views that are intolerant of others views. Like yourself. Anyone with a view or opinion that involves opposition to another view or opinion is a bigot. Like the word "Homophobe" its definition is sacrificed (Almost always by liberals for some reason) for the sake of the shcok and smear value, but I think of it as a badge of honor since the term is so meaningless as an insult and reveals the hostile Bigotry of the one using the term. Bigotry against bigotry is still bigotry, even if you think you are on the "Right side". It's just a Slander and Smear word Liberals overwhelmingly seem to love that avoids discussing the actual views and turns it into an attempt to basically insult.I also think one who compares the natural "ick" reaction most straights have to gays that a few racists have to Blacks and Mexicans has seen neither. Are you seriously implying that the "Ick" factor a person may see from an unwanted porn pop-up is the same as a Racist seeing a Black man? If so, thanks for sharing!

Well...
you should have a problem with it, since bigotry is an act of violence. You seem to think that I'm intolerant of you. Nothing could be further from truth. I dislike your view toward those whom you see as "different," or toward those who identify as homosexual. That doesn't qualify as bigotry. It does qualify as opinion toward a viewpoint. It's not a smear word -- it's a descriptor. That's all.

You seem to want to vilify liberals here with regard to the bigotry issue. Smoke an mirrors. It has always been liberals who have striven for social justice and an end to cultural violence.

If you want to discuss actual views, then you're going to have to be willing to take a realistic look at the bible to see what it actually has to say (or not!) about homosexual orientation. So far, I haven't seen evidence of that willingness in your posts -- or in the posts of most whom I suspect of being conservative in this forum.

I like your hyperbolic use of "most" straights and "few" racists -- as if quantity, or majority, has anything to do with proving a point. The fact is, people who are bigoted don't like those who identify as homosexual, because they see them as somehow "different," same as people who are bigoted don't like ethnic people, because they see them as somehow "different." I've already pointed out in another thread how the tools of systemic violence against those who identify as homosexual is virtually indistinguishable from the tools of systemic violence that were once practiced against American slaves and the Jews of the Holocaust.

If you think it's essentially different, thanks for sharing.

 

[cyberman]

Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

Christianity is not homophobic. Some Christians are, andthey claim that they are led to this position by their faith, but they are wrong.

 

[sojourner]

The concept of "Gay" is a more modern idea, back then, such as in Roman times, men would be with other men (generally slaves were the receivers, a free man receiver was thought of in the lowest of terms even by the Romans), but again, the point is that they refused the Virgin daughter.

Of course, you realize that the Sodom incident happened waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Rome -- and in a different part of the world. Therefore, what happened in Rome is not cogent to what happened in Sodom.

Then I'll insult them, a prisoner who rapes another prison is queer no matter how you slice it. In Shawshank redemption, they were called the Queens for a reason. Only recently has this concept arisen that a man doesn't have to be oriented towards males to want to rape them.

Insults don't usually make good argumentative points. If you'd care to remember, in The Shawshank Redemption, they were called "The Sisters." And it was stated that they weren't homosexual, because in order to be homosexual, one had to be human. The implication was that the prevalence of prison rape pointed toward their being less than human.

You couldn't be more mistaken about the views of "battlefield rape" and sexual orientation. If I'd put forth that argument, I'd have been embarrassed to have done so.

 

[sojourner]

Those who try to say it doesn't say what it plainly says in my opinion (and I'm assuming his) are guilty of engaging in gross dishonesty in a hope to cover up and redefine and revision what the original said. Revisionism at its finest.

In my opinion, then, your posts are guilty of gross dishonesty in a hope to cover up and redefine and revise the original meaning. Because you have yet to address what the text clearly meant, if you factor in a little cultural anthropology.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, so a person who is grossed out by something is a bigot as well as someone who holds an argumentative opinion against it ? So are we supposed to NOT be grossed out by it? Are we supposed to consider ourselves immoral for wanting to vomit and avert our eyes? Are you suggesting that the gross-out factor is wrong and has been wrong this whole time and that we are wrong for not trying to not be grossed out?

Substitute the term "black," "Hispanic," "Asian," or "Jew" for "homosexual" here and you'll have the answers to your questions. They are (in order): Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

 

[sojourner]

Heck, God Himself says that He is disgusted by it.

Correction: The writers assert that God is disgusted by it. Which makes the writers -- and not God -- bigoted in the eyes of modern culture.

 

[sojourner]

It singled out homosexuality and non-belief before listing the rest of the vices, that seems to be intentional to single out someone not born of spirit.

It's not singling out homosexuality. It's singling out what was seen as an "unnatural act."

 

[BBTimeless]

Correction: The writers assert that God is disgusted by it. Which makes the writers -- and not God -- bigoted in the eyes of modern culture.

This is an extremely good important point that is often ignored.

 

[sojourner]

Ummmmm......are you even on the same page? What kind of threats would the angels be that the daughters weren't?

They were MEN. They were STRANGERS. Think "ancient culture."

Please show where it says the custom was for Town Elders to greet them.

I'm not even going to qualify this with an answer. Please show where it says the custom is to greet the host of the party before greeting others. Please show where it says the custom is to walk on the left side of the lady.

t was also late at night so we'd assume most people were asleep.

Nope. Text says, "evening."
"Evening" and "late at night" are two different things.

Where are these Hospitality laws?

Rampant skepticism is a poor argument. Don't believe me? Ask an expert in ancient Hebrew custom.

So you agree that God destroyed entire towns with fire just for breaking Inhospitality laws (that happened to not have anything to do with sexual assault).

No. I opine that the story is hyperbole, but that it's object is inhospitality.

So rape is "inhospitality" in your view.

Absolutely! It was the duty of the host (in this case, the town elders and citizens) to offer hospitality to travelers. When taken in, they were to be protected. How is rape protection? The fact that the town elders were not there to welcome the travelers, and the fact that it was a traveler, himself, who did the welcoming and the protecting, shows that Sodom was a scofflaw. In that culture, hospitality was HUGE.

 

[Rocky S]

Title

 

[Shermana]

They were MEN. They were STRANGERS. Think "ancient culture."

I think you're the only person who will argue that they wanted to rape them because they viewed them as some kind of threat. Any commentary or is that purely your own idea?

I'm not even going to qualify this with an answer. Please show where it says the custom is to greet the host of the party before greeting others. Please show where it says the custom is to walk on the left side of the lady.

Translation: You can't prove your claim. Not like this is the first time you make a claim and then get hostile and refuse to back it when challenged. As if the custom of walking on the left side of the lady was something I mentioned. Maybe one day you'll learn that your cred takes a dive (not like you have much more to go) each time you make a bold assertion as the basis of your argument.....and then totally refuse to defend it. You said it was the custom for the Town Elders to greet them.

Nope. Text says, "evening."
"Evening" and "late at night" are two different things.

. Strong's Hebrew: 6153. ?????? (ereb) -- evening

To be fair, we have the word "Night"

http://concordances.org/hebrew/3915.htm

But in Genesis, Night is called Evening.

The issue of whether Night and Evening are necessarily referred to in different non-interchangable terms is debatable. And it says they went to Sodom at Evening, it could mean they arrived later.

Rampant skepticism is a poor argument. Don't believe me? Ask an expert in ancient Hebrew custom.

Translation: You can't prove your claim. Thanks. Can you think of an example of an expert in ancient Hebrew Custom? Would you be honorable enough to admit that you can't prove your own claim? I don't think you would. But let's see....

No. I opine that the story is hyperbole, but that it's object is inhospitality.

Great. Thanks for repeating yourself and ignoring the counter-argument without providing one.

Absolutely! It was the duty of the host (in this case, the town elders and citizens) to offer hospitality to travelers. When taken in, they were to be protected. How is rape protection? The fact that the town elders were not there to welcome the travelers, and the fact that it was a traveler, himself, who did the welcoming and the protecting, shows that Sodom was a scofflaw. In that culture, hospitality was HUGE.

[/quote]

Okay, so rape is just "Inhospitality" to Sojourner. We can now call "Date rape" "Date Inhospitality" since the man is supposed to protect his date. I agree that Inhospitality is PART of the situation.

If anyone here agrees with anything Sojourner says and can back him up on it, I would appreciate it, he could use some help backing his own claims. Otherwise, what can we conclude about scrappy "Apologetics" like the above that try to say the crime was merely "inhospitality" as if that's all the text implies they did?