Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[brightmorningstar]

To BigBadWlf

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

Do you?

How about wearing clothes of mixed fibres and same sex acts? Do you agree with them both or disagree with them both?

Where is your evidence for Biblical support of gay sex?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Homosexuality is a behavioural trait, and like ALL behavioural traits, there is a genetic component and a socialised component...

Not necessarily and that’s off topic as paedophilia is a behavioural trait as well, so is adultery. But this isn’t a Biblical support for gay sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Not necessarily and that’s off topic as paedophilia is a behavioural trait as well, so is adultery. But this isn’t a Biblical support for gay sex.

Both of which involve a genetic component.

As for your claim that I'm off topic, I don't think I was talking to you, was I?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Both of which involve a genetic component.

Not proven… http://narth.com/docs/hom101.html NARTH gives the truth!

As for your claim that I'm off topic, I don't think I was talking to you, was I?

Of course it is, show me the proof for same sex attraction genetics in the Bible.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Not proven… http://narth.com/docs/hom101.html NARTH gives the truth!

Of course it is, show me the proof for same sex attraction genetics in the Bible.

Narth is slander and lies. Maybe you should try looking for your information from unbiased sources?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
No, Narth is in line with God's truth on this fundamental issue, your sources must therefore not be in line, so are not the truth.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII,
No, Narth is in line with God's truth on this fundamental issue, your sources must therefore not be in line, so are not the truth.

So, when reality disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, it is reality that is at fault.

Sure, that seems the best explanation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If NARTH even resembled the truth, they could cite any peer reviewed, rigorous scientific material. Their failure to do so speaks far more about their inadequacy than anything I could ever say

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,

So, when reality disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, it is reality that is at fault.

Reality agrees with the Bible and I haven't given an interpetation of the Bible I have quoted what the Bible says. Your 'interpretation' in reality is disbelief.

 

[ReverendDG]

What are the Sibyline Oracles? How do they use the word?

were the Early Church Leaders merely quoting Paul? If so, that hardly counts.

the oracles used it in reference to forcing others to make money by selling their bodies, ie: pimps
the funny thing is, the pagan turned christian leaders had no idea what that word meant, so they just made up what it meant.

 

[catlover]

Getting Back to Nature

Have you ever seen an upside-down tree? You know, with the roots up in the air and the branches and leaves under the ground? Probably not.
Have you ever seen a two-headed bird? Or a dog with two tails? If you have...it would be called a “freak of nature”.A “freak of nature” is something that is contrary to God’s original plan.

So you label conjoined twins a freaks of nature...nice..how Christ like of you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII,
Reality agrees with the Bible and I haven't given an interpetation of the Bible I have quoted what the Bible says. Your 'interpretation' in reality is disbelief.

Sorry, but if what you think the Bible says disagrees with scientific evidence (not just what I think reality is) then I suggest your understanding of the Bible is flawed.

Sorry, I trust scientific consensus over your Biblical understanding.

NARTH=liars, charlatans and bigots

 

[Dogbean]

Sorry, but if what you think the Bible says disagrees with scientific evidence (not just what I think reality is) then I suggest your understanding of the Bible is flawed.

Sorry, I trust scientific consensus over your Biblical understanding.

NARTH=liars, charlatans and bigots

And I will just as easily say that if science and the Bible disagree, then your interpretation or execution of the science is flawed.

Why oh why do we all go round and round on this forever????

I am a scientist and I know science and the Bible agree.

I read that article and am still grossed out by all the medical stuff that I didn't even think about.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And I will just as easily say that if science and the Bible disagree, then your interpretation or execution of the science is flawed.

It becomes a question of Ockham's razor... just how much scientific evidence will you declare flawed before you accept that the problem may actually lay in the Bible, rather than the scientific evidence? Because if the answer is "never, I will never believe science that contradicts the Bible" well... thats your pre-rogative, of course, but its difficult to claim that you are being rational or logical.

I am a scientist and I know science and the Bible agree.

Hey, I agree. Therefore, when we find a Biblical interpretation that disagrees with science, well, that, to me, says that particular interpretation is wrong. Case in point, we have people saying "homosexuality isn't natural or genetic, cos of what the Bible says", right? Well, we have a scientific consensus that homosexuality IS both natural and genetic. Therefore, it follows that the interpretation of the Bible that leads one to say "homosexuality isn't natural" is false.

I read that article and am still grossed out by all the medical stuff that I didn't even think about.

Um... I'm not sure what you mean.

What medical stuff grossed you out? You do realise that being grossed out, does not, of itself, prove anything one way or the other? (N.B. being grossed out is not adequate basis to determine morality)

 

[RMDY]

JohnChapter14;

I appreciate your reply,but am not sure what you're trying to tell me. This, apparently is a "Christian forum" so I would expect that Quoting Scripture and writing Biblical explanations is the most effective thing to do "as Christians". I know no other language or method of communication.

"Give us clean hands". I want to share that song with you, by Christ Tomlin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl5zSB3A-Z8


I wrote to you to give you a heads up. You and I both trust and rely on scripture---but certain people in here reject biblical reasoning for secular reasoning, regardless of what the scriptures may say. I am not suggesting you stop preaching from scripture. I exort you to continue to do so.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

but certain people in here reject biblical reasoning for secular reasoning, regardless of what the scriptures may say.

I don't reject Biblical reasoning, I reject YOUR (allegedly) Biblical reasoning.

Big difference.

 

[Dogbean]

I don't reject Biblical reasoning, I reject YOUR (allegedly) Biblical reasoning.

Big difference.

Why do you reject his biblical reasoning? And mine? Because it won't let you do what YOU want to do? Is pleasing self more important to you than pleasing your God who saves us from sin and hell?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why do you reject his biblical reasoning? And mine? Because it won't let you do what YOU want to do? Is pleasing self more important to you than pleasing your God who saves us from sin and hell?

I hope that I base my Biblical understanding on logic and evidence, not just on what suits my personal fancy. Indeed, there area number of things I deny myself because I believe they are "non-biblical"

So really, thats it simply... if your Biblical interpretation contradicts evidence and logic, I won't agree with it.

Simple, huh?

 

[Brennin]

the oracles used it in reference to forcing others to make money by selling their bodies, ie: pimps
the funny thing is, the pagan turned christian leaders had no idea what that word meant, so they just made up what it meant.

No, it is used therein exactly as it is used in Paul's epistles, i.e., to refer to men who "bed" men.

 

[Dogbean]

I hope that I base my Biblical understanding on logic and evidence, not just on what suits my personal fancy. Indeed, there area number of things I deny myself because I believe they are "non-biblical"

So really, thats it simply... if your Biblical interpretation contradicts evidence and logic, I won't agree with it.

Simple, huh?

Your reasoning is simple, yes, but it is not God-honoring. We should seek to honor God in all we do. Living for ourselves and having our pleasure as number one in our lives is not honoring God.