Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[EnemyPartyII]

This is getting old I gave you scripture showing no stoning of a rape victim,

You did, and I contend that a women who does not call out is not necesarily a consenting partner.

and huge section on the real slavery meanings,

Slavery: (also called thralldom) is a social-economic system under which certain person are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.
Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor.

Is there anything in the Bible suggesting that Biblical slavery is in anyway different to the above? No? Its not just then.

and if you don't want to believe all the Bible, then you are wrong.

ORLY? So, what do I win if I can cite a Bible passage that you disagree with?

"The Bible doesn't say what I want it to so its wrong, oh wait this part is ok, wait nope not this part."

Doesn't remotely resemble my scholarship of the Bible, or how I aproach Biblical text, nice strawman though

Yes I do have a reason to condemn it because the "Bible sez so"

Its a reason, sure, just not a very convincing one. I thought you were trying to convince people that homosexual activity was wrong? Well, if you want to convince me homosexual action is wrong, I have told you what it will take. Don't get angry at me just because your idea of what the Bible says is insufficient for the task. I am not asking you anything I wouldn't ask anyone else who wanted to convince me of anything.

and if you don't like that answer, who cares!!

Well, first of all, I care, and I'm one of the people you are trying to convince I am sinful, right? (or are you just here to demonstrate your righteous condemnation of those you consider sinful? I mean, if you're not here to convince people of the rightness of your position... well... why ARE you here?)

Second, I think GOD cares... because at the moment, by demanding we all kowtow to an illogical, unjust instruction, for no reason other than "the Bible SEZ!" you are;
a. Elevating your Biblical interpretation to a position of inerrency and authority (a form of idolatry)
b. Declaring that God condemns things with no just or logical reason, which, by extension, declares God unjust and illogical.
so I think he'd have an issue with your inability to come up with a better argument than "the Bible SEZ!"

Now, as I've repeatedly said, I will happily acknowledge the possibility that I am mistaken. All it will take to convince me of my mistake, is a logically consistent reason to believe that God would condemn homosexual activity.
Nothing more, but nothing less.

Is this an unreasonable request? Would you consider abandoning a significant and important part of your life and personal identity for anything less than something logically defensible?? If not, why do you expect me to?

 

[Andreusz]

You know what I will answer you, however not as you like, since you are in our house. God had Joshua destroy the people, because they were sacrificing there children to false gods, and were not obeying his law.

So he had the Israelites kill them, including their children? Well, at least the children could die happily, knowing that they weren't being sacrificed to false gods!

They were not followers of God, and anyone who is not will meet a similar fate on judgement day by God.

So why didn't he just send a prophet to convert them?

Regarding the proscribing of homosexuality, it does not go along with God's plan for a man to leave his parents and become one with his wife. Wife, female partner of a man. God's plan is for a man and a woman to procreate and to enjoy one another sexually, in the bonds of marriage.

So why do some people, like me, feel exclusively homosexual feelings?

Now since you do not believe that God is real, there is no way to have a realistic debate with you. I have a question for you. Why is Atheism the right religion and not Christianity? In other words why should I become an atheist and quit believing in God?

To answer this I will have to break a forum rule, namely that no-one on these forums may promote any viewpoint except the Christian. However, if the moderators will allow me:

First, atheism is not a religion. It is a denial that god exists. (Someone has wittily said: Atheism is a religion in the sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.)
But why do I feel that atheism is right? Well, because there is no good evidence for the existence of any god. To say: 'God exists, because the Bible says so. The Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says so' is a circular argument.
Modern biology shows that there is no reason to postulate a designer (and lots of reasons not to postulate a designer).
Modern physics traces everything back to a single instant... there is no evidence that any intelligence caused the Big Bang.
The commandments of the various religions all look as if they were designed by very fallible (and in the case of the Abrahamic religions, ill-tempered and narrow-minded) human beings, not by a wise and benevolent supreme being.
SO, for these reasons, I am an atheist.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

I wouldn't want to worship a god who would subject me to an eternity of horrible torture for not believing in him (when there is no evidence that he exists), for not wanting to worship him (when the Bible shows him to be an arbitrary, petulant, bloodthirsty tyrant), and for having sex with people of my own sex (which doesn't hurt anyone).

Ok that’s your choice, no one is stopping you, but it doesn’t address the OP question.

But I thank you for your honesty....

I think I've said this before, but actually, on the subject of this thread, I agree with Polycarp_fan. There is no Biblical support for gay sex. There is quite explicit condemnation of it.

Of course, I take this as a reason for rejecting the Bible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I'm a Christian.

So am I

I still don't buy Joshua's genocide as being "just".

I still don't buy Biblical slavery as "just".

I don't buy stoning rape victims as "just",

You should do the world created sin and disobedience, the least we can do is acknowledge it.

and I don't buy homosexual condemnation as "just", either.

Well I am not sure what you are still talking about the Bible shows us God’s purposes for woman and man are not ‘homosexual’.

I am open to discussion on the point, but to convince me I am mistaken, you'll need to come up with more than "the Bible SEZ!".

Then the issue ceases to be about homosexuality and is about what views are Christian, which I think is at the heart of this whole debate. Your stance is similar to that of the self identified non-believers, in that you don’t accept the Bible as authority.

Because I believe God is INHERENTLY just AND logical, I believe that anything that comes from God will be logical and just too.

But that’s what you believe which is just your personal opinion. If you believe the Bible isn’t therefore God’s testimony then your argument is once again not about homosexuality but about the beliefs of Christianity.

Therefore, if we detect something that is NOT just and logical, it simply cannot originate from God, no matter the good intentions of the original author.

Well that’s the cause of all the world’s problems, the serpent said to Eve ‘did God really say?’

So, you got a logical, genuinely justifiable reason to condemn homosexual activity, or is you personal interpretation of what the Bible says the entirety of your contention?

Yes we have presented the ideas, the human species is classified by male and female by its sexual reproductive organs, so the sexual activity between the same sexes is dysfunctional. I say the thinking of homo and heterosexual is consequently also dysfunctional thinking.
But the OP is about Biblical support for gay sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes we have presented the ideas, the human species is classified by male and female by its sexual reproductive organs, so the sexual activity between the same sexes is dysfunctional.

Way to mix arbitrary classifications. You might as well say "the human species is classified by red heads and blondes, so sexual activity between people with the same hair colour is dysfunctional"

It JUST as ludicrous.

Functionality is determined by whether or not it achieves its goal. Homosexual activity achieves its purposes perfectly, therefore, it is NOT dysfunctional.

I'm sure you will come back with some sort of pedantic dissembly about definitions or something equally tangential, but the above two lines are the way function works, end of story.

I say the thinking of homo and heterosexual is consequently also dysfunctional thinking.

Well, again, you're wrong. homosexual and heterosexual are terms to describe elements of the human species, whether you acknowledge them or not.

But the OP is about Biblical support for gay sex.

so calling an entire 5% of the human population "dysfunctional" is OK, but answering questions and sharing information in an open and friendly fashion is flaming?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Way to mix arbitrary classifications. You might as well say "the human species is classified by red heads and blondes, so sexual activity between people with the same hair colour is dysfunctional"

Whatever. You asked for a reason outside the Bible which is off topic, I gave you an observable one and I see no relevance to your reasoning, hair colour isn’t related to sexual activity as sexual organs are, so your analogy is also dysfunctional thinking.

Functionality is determined by whether or not it achieves its goal. Homosexual activity achieves its purposes perfectly, therefore, it is NOT dysfunctional.

Paedophilia between a man and a girl is also dysfunctional because a girl is prepubescent. Under your thinking it would achieve its purposes for the paedophile. The function of the male penis is to deliver sperm to the female vagina in order to procreate, therefore sexual activity between two men is observably dysfunctional.

I'm sure you will come back with some sort of pedantic dissembly about definitions or something equally tangential, but the above two lines are the way function works, end of story.

Something that’s defined isn’t a tangent, rather it is central to the understanding. The definition of sexual activity by the function of the sexual organs is the end of the story.

Well, again, you're wrong. homosexual and heterosexual are terms to describe elements of the human species, whether you acknowledge them or not.

Not in many societies, but I don’t recognise them as I recognise such concepts are against God’s purposes.

so calling an entire 5% of the human population "dysfunctional" is OK, but answering questions and sharing information in an open and friendly fashion is flaming?

No, Flaming and trolling is repeatedly asking for non-Biblical reasoning when the thread asks for Biblical evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

brightmorningstar, I have NEVER put anyone on ignore, but you're really pushing the envelope here...

I have provided Biblical support for homosexuality repeatedly, and you have ignored it.

I'd also like to say that if my attempting to address others' questions and points is "off topic" then so is your broken record mantra of "dysfunctionality".

I'm sure its nice to be able to ignore all cogent points that confront your a priori assumptions by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "off topic, off topic, off topic" over and over again, but if you were genuinely interested in open and free debate, discussion, or, God forbid, maybe even LEARNING something, perhaps you'd try reading what others had to say, instead of trying to come up with reasons to ignore perfectly logical and coherent points that challenge your self righteous and self declared position of infalibility.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Andreusz]

The function of the male penis is to deliver sperm to the female vagina in order to procreate, therefore sexual activity between two men is observably dysfunctional.

Even heterosexual sex is not primarily 'for' procreation, but for recreation (and intimacy). Otherwise there'd be no abortion clinics, and straight men would never buy condoms.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A simple question:

Where is/are the passages, scriptures, or statements, in the Bible, from either the Old Testament (or rather, the Tanakh, if you like) or from the New Testament, that promotes, supports or encourages "anyone," to engage in same-gender sex acts?

Yes.

Among others, Jonathon and David, the sermon on the mount, the Centurian and his servant, and the letter to the Galatians that states that men and women are the same before God (i.e. gender doesn't matter to God, therefore he doesn't care about the gender makeup of a committed relationship)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Even heterosexual sex is not primarily 'for' procreation, but for recreation (and intimacy). Otherwise there'd be no abortion clinics, and straight men would never buy condoms.

You know what? I have it on quite good authority that there is this thing called "masturbation" too, where the penis functions without going anywhere near a vagina, and vice versa

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

brightmorningstar, I have NEVER put anyone on ignore, but you're really pushing the envelope here...

Not my problem, I am here to debate whatever the views put forward.

I have provided Biblical support for homosexuality repeatedly, and you have ignored it.

I have not ignored it I have addressed why I don’t think its valid in the same way you have addressed what was presented to you. For me I think you are in major denial of what the Bible says and imagining the Bible refers to things because of your assumptions.

I'd also like to say that if my attempting to address others' questions and points is "off topic" then so is your broken record mantra of "dysfunctionality".

I believe your views are dysfunctional and I believe homosexuality is dysfunctional for the reasons and evidence I have given, I am entitled to my opinion.

I'm sure its nice to be able to ignore all cogent points that confront your a priori assumptions by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "off topic, off topic, off topic" over and over again, but if you were genuinely interested in open and free debate, discussion, or, God forbid, maybe even LEARNING something, perhaps you'd try reading what others had to say, instead of trying to come up with reasons to ignore perfectly logical and coherent points that challenge your self righteous and self declared position of infalibility.

there are plenty of threads for that apart from this one which is specifically for Biblical countenance for gay sex, to ask for non-Biblical reasons is off topic.

Good day to you sir.

God bless you

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPArtyII

Among others, Jonathon and David,

David and Jonathan loved each other, there is no evidence they had sex, there is evidence David was physically atracted to a woman and slept with her and got married. All the evidence is against your assumption. David and Jonathan knew the Jewsih law and the text says David sinned in murder and adultery. Even the wild assumptions about David being a promiscuous bisexual is no support for loving monogamous homosexual unions.

and the sermon on the mount,

supports homosexual union as error.

the Centurian and his servant,

All the evidence points against the assumption of same sex activity.

and the letter to the Galatians that states that men and women are the same before God

In Christ. In Christ there is neither male not female because God made both, there is no concept of sexulaity.

If you believed that God's creation purpose is woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark, 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 13, and that celibacy is the alternative Matt 19, 1 Corinthians 7, and that same sex unions are error Gen 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1, you would be making the assumptions you are. As it is, adding my assumptions of those passages there are 20 passages against same sex unions as oppsoed to your 4 for.

 

[Dogbean]

Even heterosexual sex is not primarily 'for' procreation, but for recreation (and intimacy). Otherwise there'd be no abortion clinics, and straight men would never buy condoms.

No, there are abortion clinics because people rape others, and also because many people are irresponsible.

If people did not commit crime (rape), and if people adhered to God's design for sex (sex only within marriage) and if people adhered to God's Word, there would be no abortion clinics. But people are naturally evil, and crime is rampant, and people are irresponsible.

 

[RMDY]

ORLY?

Hmm... what does "the Holy Spirit convicts sin" actually MEAN though?

is it our conscience that tells us when we sin, or some arbitrary set of out of context rules?

Paul said we wouldn't know what sin was if we didn't have the Law---and that is very true. Take pre-law days: Sodom and Gomarrah, Tower of Babel, the flood, the land of Cannan---and you will come to understand that we can't always depend upon our conscience. Because if there is no one telling us what were doing wrong, we make up our own laws in our hearts, which may in fact be totally against what God wants us to do.

 

[RMDY]

Why?

Because no one else has anything to teach you?

Because this book answers ALL questions about religions other than your own, and no new information will be tolerated?

Call me cynical (I almost certainly am) but let me guess... this is a book you have read, that told you exactly what you wanted to hear, namely, that all other religions are delusional, non-sensical pipedreams, except your own, which is firmly rooted in unimpeachable, empirical evidence and logic.

Am I close?

That is because all other religions are wrong! They don't have the way, the truth, and the life!

 

[RMDY]

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles ... God constantly shows himself to be very sexist towards women

It would help to show me examples of how you believe God is "sexist" and I would like to know how you define the word "sexist" so were both on the same page.

and he happily countenances the slaughter of people whose only crime is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I take it you believe there are "good" people in this world?
The bible says there is no one good, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

So I disagree with you, those people did something wrong. Why would you defend a bunch of people who like to sacrifice their children to idols of stone and gems? Or even those who murder their parents and do all sorts of evil things like that? Or would you rather live in a society like United States or Canada where the criminals get more rights than the victim---for example, a thief could break into your car by smashing the glass of a window with his hand, cut his hand with the glass, and then sue you for damages---all the while when you didn't do anything at all! Perhaps you like living in a society where politicians seem to have special rights and get away with their lies---or even where oil barrons and their companies get away with gas gouging.

The New Testament is also awful
... God has condemned everyone to suffer eternal punishmnet for finite sins, but he relents when they torture his son (who is also himself) to death. And St Paul comes across as a revolting bigot (also a woman-hater).

Remember the bible says no one is good, and some he predestines to one thing and others he predestines to another. Can the clay say to the potter, "why did you create me this way?" Paul does not hate women, and he makes a case for men and women to love each other---> his excuse for women submitting more to a man is because they sinned ignorantly in Eden.

Seeing that many of the 'sins' listed in Leviticus are purely arbitrary, hurting no-one, I can't really think of the old testament god as a moral force.

Which ones? Sins either hurt God, others, or yourself. For example, homosexuality is a sin where you hurt yourself (although you may not hurt others). Without the Law of Moses we wouldn't know what sin was and we'd probably end up living in a society like the mayans, or the Cannanites, or something along the lines.

And though I've asked many times, no-one can explain to me why God regards homosexuality as a sin, so clearly it was purely an arbitrary decision on his part.

I just answered it. Homosexuality defiles yourself. Sexual immorality is a sin against your own body---and as a christian---it defiles God's temple, which is your body, since the Holy Spirit dwells within those who believe in Jesus and belong to him. God commanded our bodies to be used to honor God, not dishonor him in fleshly lusts.

 

[Dogbean]

It would help to show me examples of how you believe God is "sexist" and I would like to know how you define the word "sexist" so were both on the same page.

I take it you believe there are "good" people in this world?
The bible says there is no one good, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

So I disagree with you, those people did something wrong. Why would you defend a bunch of people who like to sacrifice their children to idols of stone and gems? Or even those who murder their parents and do all sorts of evil things like that? Or would you rather live in a society like United States or Canada where the criminals get more rights than the victim---for example, a thief could break into your car by smashing the glass of a window with his hand, cut his hand with the glass, and then sue you for damages---all the while when you didn't do anything at all! Perhaps you like living in a society where politicians seem to have special rights and get away with their lies---or even where oil barrons and their companies get away with gas gouging.




Remember the bible says no one is good, and some he predestines to one thing and others he predestines to another. Can the clay say to the potter, "why did you create me this way?" Paul does not hate women, and he makes a case for men and women to love each other---> his excuse for women submitting more to a man is because they sinned ignorantly in Eden.



Which ones? Sins either hurt God, others, or yourself. For example, homosexuality is a sin where you hurt yourself (although you may not hurt others). Without the Law of Moses we wouldn't know what sin was and we'd probably end up living in a society like the mayans, or the Cannanites, or something along the lines.



I just answered it. Homosexuality defiles yourself. Sexual immorality is a sin against your own body---and as a christian---it defiles God's temple, which is your body, since the Holy Spirit dwells within those who believe in Jesus and belong to him. God commanded our bodies to be used to honor God, not dishonor him in fleshly lusts.

Beautiful! Just beautiful!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you believed that God's creation purpose is woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark, 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 13, and that celibacy is the alternative Matt 19, 1 Corinthians 7, and that same sex unions are error Gen 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1, you would be making the assumptions you are. As it is, adding my assumptions of those passages there are 20 passages against same sex unions as oppsoed to your 4 for.

I don't believe that procreation is the sole purpose God has for people. Sounds like a pretty sad way to look at life if thatsd all you see people as.

 

[RMDY]

I don't believe that procreation is the sole purpose God has for people. Sounds like a pretty sad way to look at life if thatsd all you see people as.

God is a creative creator, and he designed our bodies to honor him, not to honor ourselves in fulfilling our lusts. Procreation or not, we are made in his imagine, and when people commit homosexuality, they defile the image of God and sin against their own bodies.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That is because all other religions are wrong! They don't have the way, the truth, and the life!

Must be nice when you find a book that supports your pre-existing views...

Of course, the fact is, that there is just as much empirical evidence supporting Hinduism as the way, truth and life as there is for Christianity. Faith is the only thing to tell them apart.