-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, recruit me
- Thread starter Caylin
- Start date
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
OK... so, um... why are you expecting sceince to make an observation about there being such a thing as sexual orientation, but not about there being varieties of skin colour?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Halohope,
I am not, it appeared to me that you were, you were asking for proof.
Upvote
0
SallyNow
Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!
Hey, back in the 1930's those who got lobotomies stopped their "undesirable" behaviour.
And all other meaningful behaviour. In fact, they became essentially very damaged souls.
But it stopped their undesirable behaviour!
Or maybe, just maybe, those who read the Bible with the intent to find homosexualty wrong, find excuses to find it wrong. They read scripture about an inhospitable, uncharitable, unproductive city and reason that it just must be the fault of homosexuals. Perhaps those who read about temple prostitution and decide that it must have been those homosexual prostitutes, and not the heterosexual ones, that were doing something wrong (because of course a poor John is just seeing a prostitute because his wife won't give him any while she's on her period...)
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
you made this statement;
"Actually there is no consensus of proof even in the scientific community that sexual orientation is proven."
I'm trying to work out what you mean by this statement.
(From EnemyPartyII, not HaloHope)
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Sallynow,
So those who read the Bible unwilling even to have an open mind are intent on denial and disbelief of what the Bible says.
In fact as to your comment about temple prostitution, passages of the Bible say that God’s people must not do the homosexual acts that pagans do. (Lev 18 & 20, Romans 1)
It think the evidence shows the opposite. If you look on the threads, and particularly the Biblical evidence for gay sex, you will see the following whilst people can see the exclusion and condemnation for homosexual unions, there isn’t any countenance for it.
So those who read the Bible unwilling even to have an open mind are intent on denial and disbelief of what the Bible says.
In fact as to your comment about temple prostitution, passages of the Bible say that God’s people must not do the homosexual acts that pagans do. (Lev 18 & 20, Romans 1)
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Halohope,
It was actually in response to Andreusz’s claim that the concept of homosexual orientation isn’t a lie. The reason it is a lie was explained, but there was no reason given to support the claim.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Actually, it takes an exceptionally closed mind to find any condemnation of mutually consenting homosexual relationships in the Bible, and an equally closed mind to discard any possibility that the bible refers to such relationhips in acceptible terms anywhere.
We get it, you don't like homosexuals, and you want to think the Bible backs up your distaste. Really, thats fine, in its way, but don't try to tell us you are the only one who is reading it right, because I can read the Bible just as well as you, and find npo valid reason to consider homosexuality condemned. What makes your reading of the Bible better than mine?
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I'm still lost... are we pro or anti- the actuality of sexual orientation?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Sallynow,
Well as the evidence cited was from the Bible how come you missed it. With all the studying you have been doing perhaps you could show us where homosexual practice is countenanced in the Bible.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
David and Jonathon, Centurian and his servant, and Jesus' sermon on the mount
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
Here is some of what it says again, and I believe it means what it says. (NIV)
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Matthew 19:4 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Romans 1: 26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
This is the Christian position.
Again that’s just your opinion, but the evidence says otherwise.
I have made it quite clear I have homosexual friends so that’s a false testimony against me, and besides I ma referring to the evidence of the issue I don’t want to trade personal remarks with you. The Bible says men with men and women with women is error, not me, I didn’t write the Bible. I suggest t’s the Bible you have distaste for.
I am telling you that.
Here is some of what it says again, and I believe it means what it says. (NIV)
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Matthew 19:4 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Romans 1: 26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
This is the Christian position.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
None of those accounts make any reference to anything sexual. You are just making assumptions.
Isnt it a fact that a centurion is a soldier employed to fight and kill? Isnt it a fact that Jesus heals his servant. One could argue Jesus is condoning war/killing or slavery based on these facts but not on a homosexual relationship based on an assumption.
Even if you were able to offer these three, which you cant because they simply dont say what you think they mean, what about Genesis 19, Levitucus 18 & 20, Judges 19, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 7, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. What about all the references to man and woman? You havent got a leg to stand on scriptutrally and this is why the true church sees the gay denial of the scriptures as a massive disbelief.
None of those accounts make any reference to anything sexual. You are just making assumptions.
Isnt it a fact that a centurion is a soldier employed to fight and kill? Isnt it a fact that Jesus heals his servant. One could argue Jesus is condoning war/killing or slavery based on these facts but not on a homosexual relationship based on an assumption.
Even if you were able to offer these three, which you cant because they simply dont say what you think they mean, what about Genesis 19, Levitucus 18 & 20, Judges 19, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 7, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. What about all the references to man and woman? You havent got a leg to stand on scriptutrally and this is why the true church sees the gay denial of the scriptures as a massive disbelief.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
So, when YOU read the Bible, its "evidence", when I read it its "just opinion"? Based on what?
Except that the Bible says no such thing. Certain passages may be interpreted to imply what you just said, but its hardly the same thing.
And if I can find you credible, learned linguists and academics who say that the use of the term "homosexual" in this passage is not an accurate translation of the original text...?
And what does Mathew 19:3 say?
so Mathew 19:4 is only relevent to a discussion about DIVORCE... it has no bearing on any discussion about homosexuality. Lets keep context in mind, shall we? I understand your desire to grasp at straws, but this one bears no weight at all.
Yeah... which again, has a questionable translation history... but it doesn't actually say that homosexuality is sinful, it says that its because of people's shameful lusts, that God gave them over to. I've honestly never quite understood what this passage is trying to say, but I really don't see it as the condemnation of homosexuality you seem to read it as.
No, these are three Bible quotes. Any subsequent position can only be reached through interpretation of those quotes... and would be ONE position among MANY.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
You might want to read up on the David+ Jonathon bit again... it seems pretty sexual to me.
Again, why is it that when you have an idea about the Bible, its "the Christian position" whereas when I have one, its "just an assumption"?
as for your grab bag of quotes that mention men and women... in context, are any of these talking about the ONLY acceptible form of relationship? No.
You need to understand that the man and woman is the NORMATIVE relationship description, its NOT a proscriptive description.
These are the relationships mentiuoned in the Bible because they are far and away the most common types of relationships, the ones that most people can relate to. That doesn't mean that things not mentioned are somehow condemned.
Same way that everyone discussed in the Bible is of either African, European or Semitic decent... because thats what most of the people in the area in which the Bible was written were. That doesn't mean that Asians or Polynesians or any of the racial groups not mentioned in the Bible are somehow in error, it just means that they weren't a common part of the social context in which the Bible was written.
I note you also missed the MOST important pro-homosexual piece of scripture I mentioned... Jesus sermon on the mount, where he tells us to love one another as we would be loved... which to me is the BIG green light for loving, mutually consentual homosexual relationships. But feel free to tell me why Christ was wrong.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
EnemyPartyII, The Bible is the benchmark of what Christians believe by definition, Biblical quotes are encouraged on this forum to support the views of what Christians believe. Take it therefore that whatever your disputes about the Bible are not Christian.
Matthew 19:4 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Based on what it says.
No its says such a thing. I repeat.
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Ok so neither they, nor you believe the Bible or the learned linguists and academics who translated the Bible or the learned academics and linguists who know the translations are true.
EnemyPartyII, The Bible is the benchmark of what Christians believe by definition, Biblical quotes are encouraged on this forum to support the views of what Christians believe. Take it therefore that whatever your disputes about the Bible are not Christian.
Matthew 19:4 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Matthew is quoting Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God, Matthew wasn’t.
For what reason did God make male and female? Answer is so that a man and woman be united. Its relevant to what God created, male and female, and obviously rules out man and man as we can see is error and abomination (Romans 1, Lev 18 etc)
Of course by disbelievers
It says men committed indecent acts with other men which is error. That’s homosexual practice.
No this is the Christian position, if you don’t think so offer some scripture to support your challenge.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII,
Seems pretty unisexual to me. Which bit make you think of sex between David and Jonathan because it certainly doesn’t say they had any. It does say David was attracted to and slept with women though.
Because apart from it being so historically, Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, on this forum posters are encouraged to argue the Christian position with scriptural references. Now I suppose I could say the account David and Jonathan supports that guy’s view which says God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], but the Bible doesn’t say that anymore than it says what you claim it means.
You need to understand that God’s word says it is as demonstrated. You can choose not to accept it if you wish.
they are not the most common, the most common implies there are others less common, there aren’t there are NO examples of homosexual practice and unions countenanced. This is the sort of inaccurate false claims the whole of the pro-gay argument is based on.
Love isn’t sex. Sex is to be within a marriage (1 Corinthians 7) Your ideas on the topic are all your ideas alone, they are non-Biblical and not The Christian position.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
No... based on what YOU THINK it says... not the same thing
Really? which learned linguists you got behind the NIV? whats their justification for translating "arsenokroite" to mean "homosexual"? Go on, explain to me how that is a valid translation without appealing to tradition. Nope, didn't thinl you could do it.
I have no problem with Bible quotes. But until you find me a Bible quote that says "homosexual sex is bad in all its forms" all you have to base your anti-homosexual stance on is INTERPRETATION... which is NOT the same thing as "the Bible clearly says "
trying to get a condemnation of divorce to work as a condemnation of homosexuality is all kinds of wrong. Please stop doing it. Jesus was talking about divorce, not homosexuality.
Indeed, quoting him discussing divorce, not homosexuality.
See? theres that closed mind of yours again... anything that disagrees with your chosen set of beliefs, no matter the academic and theological credentials of those making the dispute, is simply disregarded out of hand as being the work of disbelievers. An open mind would consider the possibility that it was in error and might learn from someone else.
Thats interpretation again. Men gang raping a woman? Thats an indecent act, commited with other men that isn't homosexual. Men producing pornography, theres an indecent act a group of men can get involved in without being homosexual. Heck, I'd even say robbery, theft fraud and murder, committed by groups of men is pretty indecent. Nothing homosexual about them though. I think your seeing condemnations of homosexuals because you WANT to see them, not because they are necesarily there.
A position of SOME Christians.
I did already. sermon on the mount, love one another as you would be loved... leaves no room for condemnation of the consenting sexual practices of anyone else. Direct word of God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
