Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[RMDY]

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.

Ha ha!

Even scientific opinion and secular society would agree you can't use genetics to justify all genetic dispositions. Can you imagine if society did?

 

[RMDY]

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

Big difference.

Hey, if you want to justify homosexuality because of "genetics", although people are not "hardwired" to be gay or born that way, you may as well justify lying, cheating, adultery, and other evils as a result of genetics. But ha ha! I know you wouldn't base your reasoning upon genetics but upon rather some kind of moral law, right? Funny how it comes down to that rather than genetics.

 

[RMDY]

science gives us a better understanding of God.

Ya Thats right. I think your dreaming something up from the simpsons here--->
Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY
What Mario evolved from ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QXTOmLXQi8

Evolution of simpsons on another level ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rczbWgKRjiU&feature=related

Hey, perhaps the simpsons evolved into something else!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReHCdLBB5Y&feature=related

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Oh I see...so let me try to understand you: what your telling me is that you believe on is not "born" gay but that one develops homosexuality at age of puberty? I'm just trying to come to an understanding here between us.

One isn't "born" any sexuality... one is, however, born with genetic charecteristics that strongly influence the eventual sexuality of the individual.

I'm going to use reasoning why genetics is not a justification for doing something:

I'm glad you are looking broader than just the Bible... however, lets consider your points a little more closely.

You say: "In other words, using genetics to justify cheating/adultery is unacceptable in secular society and according to the bible."

Indeed. And why is that? Because adultery is harmful to non consenting third parties, no matter how strongly predetermined an individual is towards adultery by genetics.

You say: "Anger may be inherited, but we are taught to not give in to it because it can be harmful to ourselves and others. The bible and secular society confirms this. "

And I agree 100%.

You say: "Selfishness cannot be morally justified despite having genetic origins. "

And why can it not be morally justified? Because it results in harm top non consenting third parties.

Now... what is the linking factor behind all these examples? They are morally wrong because they cause harm to non-consenting third parties.

Indeed, I would go further and say that ALL immorral behaviour causes harm to non-consenting thrid parties, and, conversely, that any behaviour that causes harm to a non-consenting third party is immoral.

Homosexuality, however, does not cause harm to non-consenting third parties.

So... it is natural, because it is an inherently genetic trait, it is not a matter of choice, because it is an inherently genetic trait, and it is not immoral, because it does not harm a non-consenting third party.

Hope that makes my position clear.

I still need to read these and will when I have time. Thank you EnemyParty II.

You are more than welcome. I don't agree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your taking the time to politely express them.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hey, if you want to justify homosexuality because of "genetics", although people are not "hardwired" to be gay or born that way, you may as well justify lying, cheating, adultery, and other evils as a result of genetics. But ha ha! I know you wouldn't base your reasoning upon genetics but upon rather some kind of moral law, right? Funny how it comes down to that rather than genetics.

Um... what?

I don't think I ever said I was going to "justify" anything through genetics. Genetics doesn't justify anything, all genetics does is tell us whether or not something is natural.

Someone who is genetically predisposed to become a schizophrenic murderer isn't "justified" in killing anyone, however, it would be wrong to accuse that individual of willfully acting that way.

I've also tried to explain to you that homosexuality, whether genetically influenced or not, is not comparable to lying, cheating, or adultery, because it doesn't harm a non-consenting third party.

And, for tyhe record, in some individuals, homosexuality IS effectively hardwired into their genes... that is, some people only have some of the genes that predispose them to be homosexual, some have none, and some have ALL of them, and in the cases where someone has all of the related polygenic homosexual influenceing genes, I contend there is never any possibility of them being anything but homosexual.

 

[RMDY]

And why can it not be morally justified? Because it results in harm top non consenting third parties.

Would you be kind enough to let me know where you get your moral laws from?

Now... what is the linking factor behind all these examples? They are morally wrong because they cause harm to non-consenting third parties.

Yes, that is one of the connections, but that was not my point. My point was that they may be genetic, or they may be not. But if they were, one could not justify himself to do those things because of genetics. Secondly, I argued that those things are not acceptable biblically and secularly because we must be following a moral law somehow to know that it is wrong. Secular people and biblical people will say its wrong because it harms others----just as you stated. But the christian will go further to say it is wrong because God calls it wrong (sin), and because we were not originally created in such as way to do those things. Where science accounts for those things genetically and even says they immoral and wrong, the bible accounts for those things because we have an inherited sin-nature and says they are immoral and wrong.

But the key difference between secularism and christianitism is one thing: God, his word, and what he commands us to do. That is what it comes down to. When we put our faith in him, we must repent. We must put on the new self and get rid of the old. We must stop living in the ways of the gentiles.

Sins don't have to harm others. They can harm ourselves, therefore, breaking our relationship with God. That is why I used Adam and Eve eating the fruit as an example. They did not harm anyone. In fact Adam and Eve were the only two people alive! They didn't harm themselves---I will even go as far to say that eating the fruit of the tree of life had benefits. The benefit was that they could take control of their lives and know good and evil. Can you prove that Adam and Eve were harming anyone? No you cannot. They only harmed themselves because of their ignorance.
As a result, they sinned---and this sin is why the bible claims that humans are naturally separated from God from birth and partly why suffering, death, and evil exists in this world today---all because Adam and Eve chose to be selfish and gain knowlege about good and evil. The reason why they sinned is because they disobeyed God and did something that he commanded them not to do.

Sin doesn't have to harm anyone around you to be a sin--- it can be one because you disobey what God commands you not to do.

Indeed, I would go further and say that ALL immorral behaviour causes harm to non-consenting thrid parties, and, conversely, that any behaviour that causes harm to a non-consenting third party is immoral.

You used that word again---"non-consenting". You also used the words "third party". I hope your not suggesting the consented polygamy, consented murder/assisted suicide, consented threesomes, consented orgies, and other similar consented things can be justified---even morally right. But then again, I ask you to please help me understand what you mean by those words.

Homosexuality, however, does not cause harm to non-consenting third parties.

Whether it does or does not, God through inspired men said that acts of homosexuality harms oneself---even harms a persons relationship with God. (Remember, Adam and Eve didn't harm "others" by eating a fruit, they merely disobeyed a command from God not to do something)

So... it is natural, because it is an inherently genetic trait, it is not a matter of choice, because it is an inherently genetic trait, and it is not immoral, because it does not harm a non-consenting third party.

I'm still a little---iffy---about whether it is genetic or not, but whether it is genetic or not is no concern to me, as I know one is not "hard-wired" to be gay, homosexuality is not inherited, one is not "born" gay, and the one thing I recall you suggesting earlier---that homosexuality is developed at an early age and is environmental (I also know you said genetic). My concern is more about what God commands us to do and not to do.

Hope that makes my position clear.

It helps =)

 

[RMDY]

Um... what?
I don't think I ever said I was going to "justify" anything through genetics. Genetics doesn't justify anything, all genetics does is tell us whether or not something is natural.

Hold on a second. That is misleading what you just said about genetics saying something is "natural". What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say God created us in this way?

Besides, I got to go, I will reply to the rest of your post another day.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Would you be kind enough to let me know where you get your moral laws from?

My concience, and my inteligent consideration. I believe "act so no non-consenting third party is caused harm" is a workable and applicable paraphrasing of Christ's new commandment.

But the christian will go further to say it is wrong because God calls it wrong (sin), and because we were not originally created in such as way to do those things.

I disagree. I believe the ONLY two reasons God ever considers any act immoral or wrong, is because it either harms a non consenting third party, or because it is actual idolatry or disrespect of him.

I do not believe that morality is ever defined for arbitrary "just because God says" type reasons.

Sin doesn't have to harm anyone around you to be a sin--- it can be one because you disobey what God commands you not to do.

Again, I disdagree. I think you are puting the cart before the horse... immoral acts are not immoral because God says they are wrong... but rather, God says certain acts are wrong because they are immoral.

You used that word again---"non-consenting". You also used the words "third party". I hope your not suggesting the consented polygamy, consented murder/assisted suicide, consented threesomes, consented orgies, and other similar consented things can be justified---even morally right. But then again, I ask you to please help me understand what you mean by those words.

Actually, I do believe that consented polygamy is moral... just extremely rare to actually achieve. But sure, if you can find two other people who equally want to be in a romantic relationship with you, and each other, as much as you want to be in one with them, I say knock yourself out.

Assisted suicide... well THAT one I think is a bit more complicated. Happy to discuss it with you, but a different thread at a different time.

As for threesomes and orgies and so on... no, I don't think they are moral because they harm others, and are generally bad for people. I believe that sex is only really helpful when it occurs within committed, loving relationships, and since orgies and threesomes generally don't, then I don't think they are OK. Again, perhaps a more indepth discussion in another thread?

But generally, when I say "non-consenting", I mean "someone who doesn't consent." I'm not quite sure what you don't get, but I'll do my best to explain it...

I'm in a consenting homosexual relationship, and I think thats OK. However, if I were to force myself on someone else who did NOT consent, then that WOULDN'T be OK... but, just like a heterosexual relationship, it is the lack of consent that makes the act immoral, rather than the sexuality of the participants.

Whether it does or does not, God through inspired men said that acts of homosexuality harms oneself---even harms a persons relationship with God. (Remember, Adam and Eve didn't harm "others" by eating a fruit, they merely disobeyed a command from God not to do something)

I disagree, as I said above. And I'm sorry, this may come as a shock to you, but I think Adam and Eve are a metaphor, I don't believe they were historical entities.

I'm still a little---iffy---about whether it is genetic or not, but whether it is genetic or not is no concern to me, as I know one is not "hard-wired" to be gay, homosexuality is not inherited, one is not "born" gay, and the one thing I recall you suggesting earlier---that homosexuality is developed at an early age and is environmental (I also know you said genetic). My concern is more about what God commands us to do and not to do.

So, how do you think individuals "become" homosexual? Speaking only for myself, I can tell you quite asuredly that from as far back as I can remember, certainly since I was old enough to think about anyone in a sexually specific way, I have felt like a homosexual. I am not attracted to men in a sexual way, I am attracted to women. Always have been. Its not that I don't LIKE men, some of my very good friends are men, I work with men everyday, and have excelent working relationships with men who I respect and admire deeply. They just don't get me hot and bothered, where women do. And no, I was never the victim of abuse, I have never been sexually assaulted, and I was raised by two loving, heterosexual parents. Thats the long version, the short version, for all intents and purposes, I WAS "born gay".

It helps =)

I do my best.

Hold on a second. That is misleading what you just said about genetics saying something is "natural". What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say God created us in this way?

*massaging sinuses* I worry that we are going to come at this from cross purposes...

I don't think God specifically made us any particular sexuality. I believe God allowed us to evolve the way we have. Just like I don't really believe that God "made" me blonde in the sense of he sat down and designed me on a drawing board and planed that I would be blonde, rather, its just the way I turned out. I could have turned out to be a brunette heterosexual, and I don't think it really would have changed the wayI fit into God's overall plan any.

But if you want to think in terms of God "making" us one way or the other, then, to try to give you an honest answer to your question, to use your frame of reference, then yes, God made me homosexual.

In as much as God intervenes in the specific creation of any individual human, those of us that are gay, he meant to be gay. Those of us that are straight, he meant to be straight. Or, for those who prefer to think in more naturalistic terms, homosexuality is natural, it occurs naturally, and serves a natural, biological function. It is not "unnatural", nor is it "dysfunctional". It is just different to heterosexuality, but that alone does not make it bad or wrong.

Besides, I got to go, I will reply to the rest of your post another day.

Look forward to it

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JohnChapter14,
I agree with you there indeed may be genetics involved, but EnemyPartyII is saying there are, as there is no consensus of agreement it we who are more in line with scientific opinion that EnemyPartyII who is not only claiming something as fact that even the scientific community as a whole doesn’t, but trusting and relying on it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I don't think I ever said I was going to "justify" anything through genetics. Genetics doesn't justify anything, all genetics does is tell us whether or not something is natural

I dont agree that quite true, although you quite rightly did not say ‘justify’, justifying was what you were doing by claiming homosexuality is genetic as a reason… which is why the comment was made to you.

My concience, and my inteligent consideration. I believe "act so no non-consenting third party is caused harm" is a workable and applicable paraphrasing of Christ's new commandment.

So I think its fair to say therefore that whilst we get our moral laws from God, through His word, you get yours from yourself. As Christians we shouldn't do that (Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I disagree.

Then you disagree with the Christian view.

I believe the ONLY two reasons God ever considers any act immoral or wrong, is because it either harms a non consenting third party, or because it is actual idolatry or disrespect of him.

But that’s your view again and not of God, God’s word says that sexual immorality harms ones own body which is to be a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6)
Its your ideas against God’s word.

I'm in a consenting homosexual relationship, and I think thats OK.

Again that’s just what you think, we are trying to show you God’s purposes from His word which you don’t seem open to.

 

[OllieFranz]

Hold on a second. That is misleading what you just said about genetics saying something is "natural". What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say God created us in this way?

Besides, I got to go, I will reply to the rest of your post another day.

Well, let's see. Jesus says that gays were born that way "from their mother's womb" (Matthew 19:12)

And God says that He is the one who formed us in the womb (Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5)

So yeah, God created gays that way.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To JohnChapter14,
I agree with you there indeed may be genetics involved, but EnemyPartyII is saying there are, as there is no consensus of agreement it we who are more in line with scientific opinion that EnemyPartyII who is not only claiming something as fact that even the scientific community as a whole doesn’t, but trusting and relying on it.

[citation needed] Yeah, all those scientific studies agreeing that there is a genetic component to homosexuality were just making it up to be funny, scientists don't really believe it.

Why don't you tell us why some people become homosexual, if not because of a predisposition from genetics?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How do you read this

My concience, and my inteligent consideration. I believe "act so no non-consenting third party is caused harm" is a workable and applicable paraphrasing of Christ's new commandment.

and come up with THIS

So I think its fair to say therefore that whilst we get our moral laws from God, through His word, you get yours from yourself.

?

But that’s your view again and not of God, God’s word says that sexual immorality harms ones own body which is to be a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6)
Its your ideas against God’s word.

Explain in what specific way homosexuality harms the body's fitness as a temple to the Holy spirit, otherwise you're just spouting vaguely sanctimonious sounding gibberish.

Again that’s just what you think, we are trying to show you God’s purposes from His word which you don’t seem open to.

"God's purposes for his word"... individually, these words make sense. Collectively, it reads like some sort of Martian.

I get that you really don't want to accept homosexuals as normal people, I do, but your tenuous straw grasping to try to justify your contempt with vague Bible verse is obvious, and really serves to convince no one but yourself.

If you want to convince me homosexuality is wrong, please feel free to contribute to my "EnemyPartyII is going to renounce homosexuality" thread, in this forum. The requisite ground rules for such a rejection are spelled out quite plainly.

 

[RMDY]

Enemy Party II, I'll get back to you. I was browsing because I was eager to see your reply.

But I'd just like to comment on something quickly.

I disagree with you over your idea of morality. I mean, let me be specific. You think we shouldn't rely on morality through the lens of God but through the lens of mankind and how they feel, correct?

I disagree. I believe the ONLY two reasons God ever considers any act immoral or wrong, is because it either harms a non consenting third party, or because it is actual idolatry or disrespect of him.

Reason 1) Harmful to consenting third party.
Reasons 2) Idolatry or disrespectful to him.

I'm going to point out your second reason. Do you know for certain that commiting acts of homosexuality isn't disrespectful to God? I mean---do you really believe you know or is that how you just feel from your heart?

 

[RMDY]

Well, let's see. Jesus says that gays were born that way "from their mother's womb" (Matthew 19:12)

And God says that He is the one who formed us in the womb (Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5)

So yeah, God created gays that way.

Thats rather misleading of you:

1) The bible specifically does not say "gays were born that way".

2) I suspect your talking about Eunuchs. In that case, that does not prove one is homosexual.

A Eunuch is one derives of their testicles, I believe.

I don't know any homosexuals who were born without testicles. And furthermore, I cite an example for people who became Eunuchs as a result of men.

"In Europe, when women were not permitted to sing in church or cathedral choirs in the Roman Catholic Church, boys were sometimes castrated to prevent their voices breaking at puberty and to develop a special high voice. The first documents mentioning castrati are Italian church records from the 1550s."
^ John Rosselli, "Castrato" article in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2001.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I disagree with you over your idea of morality. I mean, let me be specific. You think we shouldn't rely on morality through the lens of God but through the lens of mankind and how they feel, correct?

I don't see why the two should be different.

I'm going to point out your second reason. Do you know for certain that commiting acts of homosexuality isn't disrespectful to God? I mean---do you really believe you know or is that how you just feel from your heart?

I think this is kind of straying into semantics... how can one ever "know" anything... one can only make decisions based on the best available evidence. Having gathered and evaluated as much evidence as I can, I don't see any reason why God would find homosexuality disrespectful.

 

[OllieFranz]

Thats rather misleading of you:

1) The bible specifically does not say "gays were born that way".

2) I suspect your talking about Eunuchs. In that case, that does not prove one is homosexual.

A Eunuch is one derives of their testicles, I believe.

I don't know any homosexuals who were born without testicles. And furthermore, I cite an example for people who became Eunuchs as a result of men.

"In Europe, when women were not permitted to sing in church or cathedral choirs in the Roman Catholic Church, boys were sometimes castrated to prevent their voices breaking at puberty and to develop a special high voice. The first documents mentioning castrati are Italian church records from the 1550s."
^ John Rosselli, "Castrato" article in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2001.

While Matthew translated the word into Greek as "eunouchos," Jesus spoke Hebrew and its close relative Aramaic, and almost certainly used the word "saris." The Semitic peoples, including the Jews, used the word "saris" to refer to two different kinds of people. One was an eunuch, someone who (as described in Deuteronomy 23:1) "is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off," but that verse specifies the disfigurement to make it clear that the ban only applied to the one kind of saris. The other kind of saris could worship in the Temple, like the Ethiopian treasurer that met Philip in Acts 8.

The Talmud and secular literature make it clear what the other kind of saris was: They are described as effete, and delicate. They are excellent stewards and can be trusted even in the harem, but they can't be trusted around comely young men. Two rabbis quoted in the Talmud even argued whether they could be "cured."

Two pagan officials of this type are prominently mentioned in the Bible. Both obtained handsome young Hebrew slaves and treated them royally, as if they'd fallen in love with them. One raised up the handsome young Hebrew slave to run his entire household, even his neglected wife. The other even defied an edict of his king to allow his slave to do things that his pagan religion considered to be toevah (abomination). The two "eunuchs" were Potiphar and Ashpenaz, and their Hebrew slaves were Joseph and Daniel.

In Matthew 19:12 Jesus mentions three kinds of "eunuchs," the second is the familiar person made that way by misadventure, war or torture (or as a young boy, as with the later Italian Catholic castrati), and the third is a new order of "eunuchs" -- holy celibates that Paul tells us a little more about in 1 Corinthians 7. So the first, those born that way from their mother's womb are the ones that the stereotypes say have no interest in mwomen, but that young men are not safe if they are around.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
You seem unwilling to acknowledge any Biblical, scientific or logical views if they incriminate homosexual practice. This suggests you are more interested in justifying homosexual unions than seeking the truth.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz

While Matthew translated the word into Greek as "eunouchos," Jesus spoke Hebrew and its close relative Aramaic, and almost certainly used the word "saris." The Semitic peoples, including the Jews, used the word "saris" to refer to two different kinds of people. One was an eunuch, someone who (as described in Deuteronomy 23:1) "is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off," but that verse specifies the disfigurement to make it clear that the ban only applied to the one kind of saris. The other kind of saris could worship in the Temple, like the Ethiopian treasurer that met Philip in Acts 8.

The verses describe the alternative to faithful man/woman marriage, someone who is unable to be in a faithful marriage for the three reasons given, hence "eunouchos," . You make it sound as if Matthew wasn’t reporting correctly what Jesus said, as if you were there. Sorry but the text says "eunouchos” so if He actually said saris Deuteronomy 23 would be an example of made that way by men.
1 Cor 7 merely refers to those who don’t marry and those

So the first, those born that way from their mother's womb are the ones that the stereotypes say have no interest in mwomen, but that young men are not safe if they are around.

The alternative Jesus gives is to faithful marriage, if one had no interest in women they wouldn’t need an alternative.
The fact is Jesus in Matthew 19 affirms Genesis 2 that God created woman for man to be in union, that someone has no interest in women is merely their choice to celibacy. If they decide on same sex unions it against God’s creation purpose.

 

[Dogbean]

I don't see why the two should be different.I think this is kind of straying into semantics... how can one ever "know" anything... one can only make decisions based on the best available evidence. Having gathered and evaluated as much evidence as I can, I don't see any reason why God would find homosexuality disrespectful.

To EnemyPartyII,
You seem unwilling to acknowledge any Biblical, scientific or logical views if they incriminate homosexual practice. This suggests you are more interested in justifying homosexual unions than seeking the truth.

I agree with brightmorningstar. EP2, you have been given clear Scriptures, from both the Old Testament and the New Testament that in no unclear way say that God disapproves of homosexual behavior. Rather than just accept it for what it is, you continue to dance around it and deny it and justify your sin, and this is because you don't want to give it up. I, and I'm sure the other Christians here will join me, pray for your enlightenment through the Holy Spirit, that He convicts you of your sin and gives you the strength to overcome it. Then you could be a blessing to other struggling homosexual Christians.