If being homosexual is a sin, then why did God create homosexuals?

[SiderealExalt]

Sure it does, they didn't follow God's guidelines. They didn't obey God's commandments, and so they gave up on their marriage, or started their relationship wrongly. I never inferred that all or even most Christians follow God's guidelines for marriage. For one, not every Christian is truly a follower of Christ. Second, I never suggested in any way that Christians are free from mistakes. My point was that God's way is the right way, and following his commands in marriage will yield a healthy, lasting marriage.

By the way, do you have figures/evidence, or is this baseless assertion?

I'll just call up all the relationship and marraige councilors and sociologists around the world and tell em to pack it all up and find new jobs. Tortoise an his infinite amount of sociological marraige related expertise has finally solved the problem of why not all marriages last.

...Or...I'll repeat what I said. Why don't you try doing actual objective research.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

I'll just call up all the relationship and marraige councilors and sociologists around the world and tell em to pack it all up and find new jobs. Tortoise an his infinite amount of sociological marraige related expertise has finally solved the problem of why not all marriages last.

...Or...I'll repeat what I said. Why don't you try doing actual objective research.

I thought he was responding to your statement regarding the divorce rate among Southern Baptists. He has a valid point, as many Christian marriages are dissolved either for (1) grounds that are not biblical (I'm not "in love", etc.); (2) a believer being left by an unbelieving spouse (again the believer has departed from the biblical teaching of not being unequally yoked), or (3) adultery (clearly not following biblical instruction) - hence they have fallen away from God's instruction regarding marriage.

 

[JediMobius]

No the same tactic.
You attempted to associate gays and lesbians with murderers

You're interrupting, which means you're ignoring the point as a whole. I've already refuted this assertion, you've offered no further reasoning.

Do you think the people doing the lynching weren’t Christians?

I think they're precisely the kind of people Jesus was referring to when he said in Mat 7:21-23 [BIBLE]Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' [/BIBLE]

Are you saying you support marriage equality for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?

Do you support removal of the over 1,500 federal laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians in protection from discrimination in housing, employment, insurance, adoption, inheritance?

This belongs in political discussion, not ethics and morals discussion. Support? No, but no American should be denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would simply prefer they not try to equate homosexual unions with marriage. As for the 1500 federal laws, well it's been said that the more numerous a government's laws, the deeper its corruption. We've digressed enough on this thread, I think, but if you really want to know, I'll answer these questions in a political thread.

Again you specifically attempted to associate gays and lesbians with murderers

Saying something repeatedly in an attempt to enforce its truth is a Fascist tactic, and has no basis in reason. If you'd like to cite where specifically I made this association, fine. Do that.

And the people who use the bible to condemn gays and lesbians are motivated by what exactly?

Why should we assume that the motivation in using the bible to justify prejudice against one minority is somehow different from the motivation in using the bible to justify prejudice against a different minority?
Can you explain why one group is morally superior to the other?

Yeah, we're getting nowhere here. It's not prejudice, it's ethics, which you might have noticed is the point of this thread being placed in the category of ethics and morality.

Again you specifically attempted to associate gays and lesbians with murderers. so what exactly was out of context?

Specifically attempted? You do not know my intentions. We're not even having a reasonable discourse here. It's like you're not even trying to understand my points, you just read out of them whatever ideas help you attack my position.

Sounds like you are referring to the bible. Remember Satan quotes scripture too.

How clever. . . If you had any understanding of scripture, that might be a good point coming from you. . . I'm sure what I said correlates to scripture, but it's not a direct quote, just a point of reasoning.

I made no mention of your faith. Just the fact that the tactics you are employing to justify your personal prejudice are the same as tactics used by racists to justify their personal prejudices.

If you don’t’ like the comparison try posting justifications that were/are not also employed by racists.

No mention of my faith? Really? You don't remember insulting or vilifying Christianity or the bible? I have made obvious statements about my faith from which my standpoints come from. You attack my viewpoint as some kind of racist tactic, you attack my faith by association.

Just say it over and over til it's true, huh?

 

[SiderealExalt]

I thought he was responding to your statement regarding the divorce rate among Southern Baptists.

Considering I wasn't quoted and someone else was, who knows.

He has a valid point, as many Christian marriages are dissolved either for (1) grounds that are not biblical (I'm not "in love", etc.); (2) a believer being left by an unbelieving spouse (again the believer has departed from the biblical teaching of not being unequally yoked), or (3) adultery (clearly not following biblical instruction) - hence they have fallen away from God's instruction regarding marriage.

Problem A. I suspect people like you are fond of describing a lot of things as biblical. Personally I don't care. It also shows that he has yet to provide any evidence for the entire world that is convincing as to why people get divorced. His answer was "Goddidit." That is not "valid" that's intellectually lazy.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I think they're precisely the kind of people Jesus was referring to when he said in Mat 7:21-23 [bible]Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' [/bible]

Popular Christian Ad Hoc. If someone does something that contradicts my personal ethics, they aren't part of my social group, even if they are. Course, this perception changes over the centuries as to what constitutes it, changes between social groups, and changes between groups geographically. So it's extremely hard to gauge what if anything Tortoise is saying here accurately.

This belongs in political discussion, not ethics and morals discussion. Support? No, but no American should be denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would simply prefer they not try to equate homosexual unions with marriage. As for the 1500 federal laws, well it's been said that the more numerous a government's laws, the deeper its corruption. We've digressed enough on this thread, I think, but if you really want to know, I'll answer these questions in a political thread.

When I hear someone say prefer when it comes to civil rights issues, I can't help but wonder if it's an issue of arrogance, ignorance or ego.

Saying something repeatedly in an attempt to enforce its truth is a Fascist tactic, and has no basis in reason. If you'd like to cite where specifically I made this association, fine. Do that.

Call this a crazy idea, but I bet saying. "No I am not trying to compare gays to murderers." would solve your problem rather quickly.

No mention of my faith? Really? You don't remember insulting or vilifying Christianity or the bible?

He doesn't have to try hard. Christian history does a good job of vilifying itself.

 

[JediMobius]

Early man's slow development of social units came first, the rest(the creation of religions,gods,etc) is a facsimile that falls short.

What makes mankind's account of history more reliable than the bible?

So that's why say, Southern Baptist divorce rates are higher than average for the country a few years ago?

I know, Christians have this bad habit of taking large sociological issues and trying to answer them with "Goddidit." Why don't you try doing actual objective research.

Way to force me into a vast generalization. Very objective of you. *sarcasm*

The issue in this thread is as the title states. If I'm not to include what God has done, how am I to reply?

 

[SiderealExalt]

What makes mankind's account of history more reliable than the bible?

Lets see, mundane historical documentation independently verifiable(not that you were specifying) over a disparate joining of Jewish mythology, pseudo history, and revised documentation written by anonymous authors who all came from a time when even highly learned people did not have a concept of naturalism.

Way to force me into a vast generalization. Very objective of you. *sarcasm*

You painted yourself into that corner, and now you're crying about it. Moral of the story, don't paint yourself into absurd corners. I believe there is a saying about how extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The issue in this thread is as the title states. If I'm not to include what God has done, how am I to reply?

I think people were expecting it. The ole Why do you think homosexuality is bad? to be replied by "Because God says it's naughty." is pretty much par for the course. I am sure this is why so many people are continually joyful that our country is a democratic republic and not a theocratic dictatorship of a Christian persuasion.

 

[JediMobius]

I'll just call up all the relationship and marraige councilors and sociologists around the world and tell em to pack it all up and find new jobs. Tortoise an his infinite amount of sociological marraige related expertise has finally solved the problem of why not all marriages last.

...Or...I'll repeat what I said. Why don't you try doing actual objective research.

You've got a little too much bias to be demanding objectivity from anyone. Do you hold ridicule as sound argument?

 

[SiderealExalt]

You've got a little too much bias to be demanding objectivity from anyone. Do you hold ridicule as sound argument?

I didn't claim that the myriad number of problems that has effected millions if not billions of people around the globe in their committed relationships can be summed up completely and solely in the superstitions and mythologies of a single cultures ancient written account of those mythologies.

I'm sure anyone reading would like to see you provide your years of peer reviewed research and evidence on the matter. That would satisfy myself and I would assume others. If you can't. Don't be surprised if someone calls bs.

 

[JediMobius]

Lets see, mundane historical documentation independently verifiable(not that you were specifying) over a disparate joining of Jewish mythology, pseudo history, and revised documentation written by anonymous authors who all came from a time when even highly learned people did not have a concept of naturalism.
You painted yourself into that corner, and now you're crying about it. Moral of the story, don't paint yourself into absurd corners. I believe there is a saying about how extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think people were expecting it. The ole Why do you think homosexuality is bad? to be replied by "Because God says it's naughty." is pretty much par for the course. I am sure this is why so many people are continually joyful that our country is a democratic republic and not a theocratic dictatorship of a Christian persuasion.

My point which you so grossly missed is that this thread specifically included God before I even got here.

You are an extremely unreasonable person to discuss with. Your responses are laden with bias, and your 'gems' of ridicule are completely uncalled for, so farewell. You can tell yourself you win if it suits you.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Considering I wasn't quoted and someone else was, who knows..

Oops, shows how well I was reading back. Sorry about that - conservative Christians then, generally, rather than Southern Baptists specifically.



Problem A. I suspect people like you are fond of describing a lot of things as biblical. Personally I don't care. It also shows that he has yet to provide any evidence for the entire world that is convincing as to why people get divorced. His answer was "Goddidit." That is not "valid" that's intellectually lazy.[/quote]
People like me? Do you know many? If so, please handle the intro, because I'm an oddity where I'm at. I was vehemently anti-Christian until age 43. I'd be tickled pink to meet more folks who were saved later in life.

It is valid when talking about marriages among professing Christians. I wouldn't extrapolate it out to everyone else.

 

[SiderealExalt]

People like me? Do you know many? If so, please handle the intro, because I'm an oddity where I'm at. I was vehemently anti-Christian until age 43. I'd be tickled pink to meet more folks who were saved later in life.

Good thing it has no bearing on what we're actually discussing.

It is valid when talking about marriages among professing Christians. I wouldn't extrapolate it out to everyone else.

It's valid in that you can safely assume that married Christians are probably going to involve marraige in their relationships. Which says nothing as to the validity of said religion.

 

[JediMobius]

I didn't claim that the myriad number of problems that has effected millions if not billions of people around the globe in their committed relationships can be summed up completely and solely in the superstitions and mythologies of a single cultures ancient written account of those mythologies.

I'm sure anyone reading would like to see you provide your years of peer reviewed research and evidence on the matter. That would satisfy myself and I would assume others. If you can't. Don't be surprised if someone calls bs.

Ok, fine, one more reply. You argue like a ticked off boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm sorry, but you do. Defending yourself with "I'm not the one who. . . " insinuation is ridiculous. If these relationships were so committed, then why did they fall to shambles?

Peer reviewed research. . . you mean like the bible and all the theological writing based off of it? I think those count.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Ok, fine, one more reply. You argue like a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm sorry, but you do. Defending yourself with "I'm not the one who. . . " insinuation is ridiculous. If these relationships were so committed, then why did they fall to shambles?

I'm sure anyone reading would like to see you provide your years of peer reviewed research and evidence on the matter. That would satisfy myself and I would assume others.

Waiting.

Peer reviewed research. . . you mean like the bible and all the theological writing based off of it? I think those count.

Cutting out talk of the forgies, mythological and historical inaccuracies of the bible out for just a moment. It's not a comprehensive book on the marital problems or people all around the world today.

So again, we're waiting.

If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim. You can simply admit you made the claim with no evidence to support it.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Good thing it has no bearing on what we're actually discussing.

Hey, you brought it up. You're gonna call foul when I challenge your assumption?

It's valid in that you can safely assume that married Christians are probably going to involve marraige in their relationships. Which says nothing as to the validity of said religion.

It was a valid response to the quoted comment regarding the divorce rate of conservative Christians - who, based upon their stated beliefs, are not following the very words they claim to believe.

As to the validity of the religion itself - that is a matter for each individual to determine for themselves and outside of my province. As well as being off-topic.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Hey, you brought it up. You're gonna call foul when I challenge your assumption?

Nope, just pointing out it's irrelevancy. If you are not a Christian who doesn't reduce everything down to, Goddidit/BibleRBestAnswer5Everything, I'd be pleasantly surprised. I like people who can think.

A

s to the validity of the religion itself - that is a matter for each individual to determine for themselves and outside of my province. As well as being off-topic.

Determine for themselves actually doesn't go far enough. It's determine for themselves with proper examination of all empirical evidence up to date, preferably using the scientific method. If you mean that sure, if you mean, decide what feels good for you. Then I hope you understand what subjectivity means.

But I bet we do need to turn it more on topic. And from the looks of the thread, lots of people are still waiting for answers from some Christians that will satisfy their query. I don't know if it will happen though. Rarely do topics like this make people switch sides one way or the other.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Nope, just pointing out it's irrelevancy. If you are not a Christian who doesn't reduce everything down to, Goddidit/BibleRBestAnswer5Everything, I'd be pleasantly surprised. I like people who can think.

ADetermine for themselves actually doesn't go far enough. It's determine for themselves with proper examination of all empirical evidence up to date, preferably using the scientific method. If you mean that sure, if you mean, decide what feels good for you. Then I hope you understand what subjectivity means.

But I bet we do need to turn it more on topic. And from the looks of the thread, lots of people are still waiting for answers from some Christians that will satisfy their query. I don't know if it will happen though. Rarely do topics like this make people switch sides one way or the other.

I agree - I'll stop contributing to the derail after this post. I've already responded to the OP earlier in the thread. And, for the record, I don't ever expect to sway anyone to my opinion - it's just my opinion and I try to share it respectfully. I'm not an expert and I'm not even particularly persuasive.

I CAN think - but my conversion, being a personal thing, was still a highly subjective experience. If you're interested, you can read about it here http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48577802#post48577802

 

[SiderealExalt]

I agree - I'll stop contributing to the derail after this post. I've already responded to the OP earlier in the thread. And, for the record, I don't ever expect to sway anyone to my opinion - it's just my opinion and I try to share it respectfully. I'm not an expert and I'm not even particularly persuasive.

I CAN think - but my conversion, being a personal thing, was still a highly subjective experience. If you're interested, you can read about it here http://christianforums.com/showthrea...2#post48577802

My opinion, ultimately on the issue is of course not religious. But really, the single thing I try to think about isn't really the angle we approach the issue. It's the stigmatized kids in communities and families who get crapped on because their gay, and for people that it gets as far as they get killed over it. Sorry to the Christians out there who disagree but my concern for those kids comes WAY before your religious beliefs to me.


http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48577802#post48577802

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

My opinion, ultimately on the issue is of course not religious. But really, the single thing I try to think about isn't really the angle we approach the issue. It's the stigmatized kids in communities and families who get crapped on because their gay, and for people that it gets as far as they get killed over it. Sorry to the Christians out there who disagree but my concern for those kids comes WAY before your religious beliefs to me.

I share your concern - both before my conversion to Christianity, and after. While I interpet my Bible, which I believe to be God's word, as stating that homosexuality is sinful, I also know that it says that a HUGE number of things that I have done, still do, and will do are also sinful.

I also know that, as a Christian, I am commanded to love others. And as a person, just me, I don't believe in denigrating anyone for their lifestyle, whatever it may be, so long as others aren't being harmed by it.

IMO, there is never an excuse, even under the guise of Christian concern, to berate or belittle someone. And for those who have been turned away and discarded by family/friends/neighbors because they are living in a way that is not in line with a certain view of Christianity - well, that's just plain unchristian, unloving and inhumane.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wrong. God's initial example of marriage was between Adam and Eve. God gave him one wife, no more. The examples of polygamy I can recall were of David, and Solomon. Both of these men had specific problems which led them away from God largely because of their many wives. God allowed it, but it wasn't his intention. Later, Jesus says that a man leaves his parents to join his wife and the two become one. He didn't mention any more than one man and one wife.

Upon research, the first man in the bible to have 2 wives has very little written about him. Pretty much just that he had two wives and he pretty much said "I killed a young man for hurting me. If Cain (his ancestor) got his vengence, I'll get mine 11 times more" Sounds like a threat to keep his wives in line. Nowhere in that passage did it say anything about this man Lamech following God's commands. Usually, when anyone in the bible is a servant of God, or follows God's commands, it's quick to be said about them.

From God himself, we are given a model for marriage of one man and one woman. You speak of the bible as if everything in it is what we're supposed to do, but there are plenty of examples of what not to do. It was man's idea to have multiple wives. Society has simply changed its stance on the matter.

Polygamy is pretty much the standard example of marriage in the bible.
It was something the patriarchs engaged in.

Exodus 21:10 provides the rules for marrying more than one woman


Deuteronomy 21:15 details the rules for inheritance for the children of a man with multiple wives. The son of the favored wife gets the inheritance


Deuteronomy 25:5 explains how if a woman dies without having had a male child she was to be shipped off to her brother in law to be married as his second or their wife. This is the Levirate marriage. The Latin word levir is the equivalent of the Hebrew yabam, which means brother-in-law. Jesus gave his implicit blessing to such marriages in Matthew 22:23-32

Jesus also uses polygamy in his parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13.

Solomon’s problem was not his 700 wives (and 300 concubines) but rather that some of his wives were foreigners 1 Kings 11:1-4 “They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love.
As we clearly see in 1 Kings 11:2, the marriage of multiple wives by itself is not sinful and was never condemned. It was Solomon's marriage from the pagan women that was prohibited by

As for David. 1 Kings 15:5 clearly states that David’s only sin was in having Uriah killed so he could have Bathsheba. His marriage to all those other women was not a sin. His affair with Bathsheba was not a sin. His marriage to Bathsheba wasn’t a sin.

When one reads the bible it is obvious God approves of ploagamy. As the author of the bible he refers to the women who were the second or third or the hundrenth married to a man all as ‘wives’

Abraham, Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Gideon, Ashur, Rehoboam, all had multiple wives…and God called them all wives.


…or are you saying God didn’t know what he was talking about?

As for that second assertion, please be more specific.

Have you read the bible?
Try reading Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30 to start with

Sure it does, they didn't follow God's guidelines. They didn't obey God's commandments, and so they gave up on their marriage, or started their relationship wrongly. I never inferred that all or even most Christians follow God's guidelines for marriage. For one, not every Christian is truly a follower of Christ. Second, I never suggested in any way that Christians are free from mistakes. My point was that God's way is the right way, and following his commands in marriage will yield a healthy, lasting marriage.

So you are saying there are True Christians™ and all the rest. May I venture to guess thath you think all True Christians™ agree with you and anyone who dares to disagree is by definition a not True Christians™

By the way, do you have figures/evidence, or is this baseless assertion?

Do you mean the baseless assertion you just agreed with?