Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[one11]

While I guess this is slightly going off topic, I disagree. I personally feel gender roles and the like (a girl should be taught to cook, a guy must be taught to provide..etc) are pretty pointless things and believe either gender can teach a child many things wrongfully percieved as being exclusive to one gender.

I think a single parent, two parents of the same gender etc.. can raise a child just as well as opposite sex couple.

I wasnt really raised by either of my parents, both taking an extended absense from my life and id have been happy to be raised by anyone who could have given me love, gender irrelevant.

I'm not talking about gender roles. Men are perfectly able to cook and do dishes and do the laundry. Don't put all that off of modern women who is working a full time job too!

These men love their daughter but they do not have a clue in what she is feeling emotionally as a woman. She is very loved, but she is depressed too, and I happen to know why she is depressed as I understand because I am a woman, so I had to tell them because they were clueless. Once I told them, they were like "ooooooooh". But, she's still depressed quite a lot and still keeps seeking "mother" figures.

 

[wayseer]

You mean other than the Levitical law right?

I mean all the Bible.

But the whole issue of homosexuality (or evolution) is not about homosexuality (or evolution) - it is about how one chooses to interpret the Bible.

I reject the Bible as evidence of history. I reject the Bible as evidence of science.

I accept the Bible as the received wisdom of my elders over many generations that contains the truth of the existence of God.

 

[wayseer]

The only merit I can give this argument is that in some ancient pagan culture the men had long hair and made themselves look like women for ritual temple prostitution sex or to be a sex slave (in bondage) to the Greek and Roman pagan "lords".

But we're supposed to see that Greeks and Roman paganism bore good fruit?

Do not forget that Satan has dominion over this world until the anti-Christ is revealed and Jesus comes back to defeat him. Jesus left us the gift of the Holy Spirit and has sent his beloved (us) Angels to watch over us until he returns so that we may defeat what the devil wants, which is to kill us and destroy us.

We are under Grace by the gift of the Holy Spirit, but we (the church) are still under a "test".

I still believe God called homosexuals to be celibate, and I see no other scripture from Jesus to believe that marriage is anything but a God-given covenant between a man and a woman.

I've also seen children raised by two men in my family and they don't have a clue how to teach a daughter (a woman) things that they as men cannot understand.

And there are studies were two woman or one woman (a single mother) have emasculated men. So the missing father figure here is not discussed in the LGBT community nor are the studies of men being emasculated emotionally without a good male role model.

Children have the best chance of a happy and mature mind when they have both role models of a man and a woman for their upbringing.

One11 - you are entitled to your beliefs - and I think marriage may well be a symbol of one's relationship with God.

However, about 1 in 4 families (by whatever method is used to determine exactly what now days constitutes a 'family') live under the threat of domestic violence and abuse. So the 'family' is not necessarily the ideal model as you might think.

 

[No Swansong]

I mean all the Bible.

But the whole issue of homosexuality (or evolution) is not about homosexuality (or evolution) - it is about how one chooses to interpret the Bible.

I reject the Bible as evidence of history. I reject the Bible as evidence of science.

I accept the Bible as the received wisdom of my elders over many generations that contains the truth of the existence of God.

Just so that I am clear you are stating that there is nothing in the Levitical law that condemns homosexuality?

I realize that homosexuality can be referred to as an orientation and to that I say you are correct. The Old Testament writers probably had no idea what sexual orientation was to begin with. However homosexuality can also refer to same sex sex acts. Using the later definition are you stating that nothing in the Levitical Law condemns same sex sex acts?

 

[No Swansong]

One11 - you are entitled to your beliefs - and I think marriage may well be a symbol of one's relationship with God.

However, about 1 in 4 families (by whatever method is used to determine exactly what now days constitutes a 'family') live under the threat of domestic violence and abuse. So the 'family' is not necessarily the ideal model as you might think.

I would be interested in reading your reference for this. I suspect you may be quoting a study that included in their numbers any home in which Alcohol is used regardless of frequency, and homes in which a gun is kept regardless of safety precautions used as being homes in which the threat of violence and abuse exists.

If not then I'd still like to read the study. (Behavioral Science is my interest)

 

[david_x]

I mean all the Bible.

But the whole issue of homosexuality (or evolution) is not about homosexuality (or evolution) - it is about how one chooses to interpret the Bible.

I reject the Bible as evidence of history. I reject the Bible as evidence of science.

I accept the Bible as the received wisdom of my elders over many generations that contains the truth of the existence of God.

That's ironic seeing as most scholars accept it as evidence of history.

 

[david_x]

...

 

[Zeena]

That's ironic because most scholars accept the Bible as evidence of history...

The double post is quite 'ironic' too

I think a single parent, two parents of the same gender etc.. can raise a child just as well as opposite sex couple.

How so? Men and women are different, are they not?

I wasnt really raised by either of my parents, both taking an extended absense from my life and id have been happy to be raised by anyone who could have given me love, gender irrelevant.

I'm sorry for your loss.
My dad was taken away by the authorities when I was an infant, and my mom raised us kids. Though she always tried to have an authority figure around [eg;a man] it just wasn't the same without my dad.

 

[wayseer]

That's ironic seeing as most scholars accept it as evidence of history.

Then perhaps you have to read what scholars have been saying during the last two hundred years. Most scholars do not now accept the Bible as history. I refer to scholars in the order of Wright, Borg, Funk, Spong, Crossan, Mack Gager to name but a few.

 

[wayseer]

I would be interested in reading your reference for this. I suspect you may be quoting a study that included in their numbers any home in which Alcohol is used regardless of frequency, and homes in which a gun is kept regardless of safety precautions used as being homes in which the threat of violence and abuse exists.

If not then I'd still like to read the study. (Behavioral Science is my interest)

I don't have those studies at hand. I was a telephone counsellor with Lifeline for a number of years and I now no longer have access to that material. However, I don't think one would need to look hard to find that evidence.

Indeed alcohol does play an important part in DV as does illicit drugs. Guns in Australia is not a big issue - we have very strict controls on gun ownership and use. It is of interest that people now charged with murder seem to generally use knives in the commission of the offense.

By far the biggest factor in DV and abuse is family history - not the present family but the families from which victims and perpetrators were raised - what is known as the 'cycle of violence'. Australia now has some pretty stringent laws regarding DV and abuse and probably leads the world in this. As a behaviour scientist I would image you would have access to this material.

Here is an Australia government site which has lots of links and references which might interest you http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/Dom_violence.htm

 

[No Swansong]

I don't have those studies at hand. I was a telephone counsellor with Lifeline for a number of years and I now no longer have access to that material. However, I don't think one would need to look hard to find that evidence.

Indeed alcohol does play an important part in DV as does illicit drugs. Guns in Australia is not a big issue - we have very strict controls on gun ownership and use. It is of interest that people now charged with murder seem to generally use knives in the commission of the offense.

By far the biggest factor in DV and abuse is family history - not the present family but the families from which victims and perpetrators were raised - what is known as the 'cycle of violence'. Australia now has some pretty stringent laws regarding DV and abuse and probably leads the world in this. As a behaviour scientist I would image you would have access to this material.

Here is an Australia government site which has lots of links and references which might interest you http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/Dom_violence.htm

I am quite familiar with the causes behind DV. I have worked with abused women a great deal in the past, as well as sexual abusers. I must admit I think the reason I was thrown off was that indeed I did not think that you were referring to Australia. In the U.S. it is not uncommon for those who wish to inflate numbers of those who are under threat of DV by including all homes where a gun is present, and all homes where alcohol is used. Obviously both can affect such numbers but those cases in which abuse occurs simply because a gun is in the home or simply because alcohol is used in the home are rare. Usually as you correctly point out the most important issue is whether there is a history of violence. That is why I asked for your source.

 

[wayseer]

Just so that I am clear you are stating that there is nothing in the Levitical law that condemns homosexuality?

No - I'm not saying that. What I am saying that the references to homosexuality as you cite is contained within a larger cultural agenda - one of distancing itself from the surrounding cultural practices. Paul was saying something similar. In other words, the context is important in understanding the philosophy behind such 'laws'.

The culture of Israel is far different to the culture of Western society in the 21st Century and the circumstances are so very different.

 

[david_x]

Then perhaps you have to read what scholars have been saying during the last two hundred years. Most scholars do not now accept the Bible as history. I refer to scholars in the order of Wright, Borg, Funk, Spong, Crossan, Mack Gager to name but a few.

Regardless, it is accepted well enough to be in our history text books.

 

[one11]

Then perhaps you have to read what scholars have been saying during the last two hundred years. Most scholars do not now accept the Bible as history. I refer to scholars in the order of Wright, Borg, Funk, Spong, Crossan, Mack Gager to name but a few.

Yep, that's a lot of scholars there as in "most"

 

[wayseer]

Stop laughing and do some reading - then you will have to think - you might then learn something.

The Church has consistently told us what it wanted us to hear - it has vested interest in keeping the lid on things. In this way the Church is not all that far from those Islamists who deny women any sort of education. Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag - we no longer have to live in the 17th Century.

How game are you - ready for a challenge - or are you going to continue to treat the Bible as some sort of idol to be protected at all cost? Your call.

 

[one11]

Stop laughing and do some reading - then you will have to think - you might then learn something.

The Church has consistently told us what it wanted us to hear - it has vested interest in keeping the lid on things. In this way the Church is not all that far from those Islamists who deny women any sort of education. Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag - we no longer have to live in the 17th Century.

How game are you - ready for a challenge - or are you going to continue to treat the Bible as some sort of idol to be protected at all cost? Your call.

This post is even funnier.

 

[Zeena]

Then perhaps you have to read what scholars have been saying during the last two hundred years. Most scholars do not now accept the Bible as history. I refer to scholars in the order of Wright, Borg, Funk, Spong, Crossan, Mack Gager to name but a few.

2 Peter 3:3-6
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

 

[one11]

Stop laughing and do some reading - then you will have to think - you might then learn something.

The Church has consistently told us what it wanted us to hear - it has vested interest in keeping the lid on things. In this way the Church is not all that far from those Islamists who deny women any sort of education. Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag - we no longer have to live in the 17th Century.

How game are you - ready for a challenge - or are you going to continue to treat the Bible as some sort of idol to be protected at all cost? Your call.

This post is funnier because you have your mind set on idols, but you cannot see that.

 

[wayseer]

This post is funnier because you have your mind set on idols, but you cannot see that.

Perhaps that is a predictable response.

 

[one11]

Perhaps that is a predictable response.

I don't think so. Because your preaching against the Bible being an idol, when you have "idols". So I found it funny.