Homosexuality and the Bible

@Lily,

Lily;82275 wrote:

Please tell me why then, why, oh why, can we freely choose what to belive from the old testament?? In Leviticus it's said that homosexuality is wrong (just a fun fact, it's said that hot man to man action is wrong, it doesn't mention lesbians at all), next chapter tells you how sacrifice correctly, how do you exlpain that?

Okey, you got me! I'm not a pedophile, so I can't know how they feel. But I do know that it is wrong to hurt anyone. Jesus agrees with that. And I do know that homosexual are loving, and if you can't see that I only feel sorry for you. They don't hurt eachother.

Have you ever been in love. It's kind of great, isn't it? Comparing that with a childs pain and cry is pretty stupid, IMO.

I'll make a deal with you. I will explain your questions about the OT once you provide evidence that shows a homosexuals desires are not based off of any choice of his/her own. For bonus points try and also find out why a pedophile is not the cause of a biological trait but simply a mental disorder.

I can answer you but it would just take a bit of typing on my part. So lets handle your claims first.

@click here,

click here;82277 wrote:

I'll make a deal with you. I will explain your questions about the OT once you provide evidence that shows a homosexuals desires are not based off of any choice of his/her own.

I'll do my best, could you please provide me evidence that shows the same thing about heterosexuals?

But you are saying that homosexuals can't love, only lust? :perplexed: Seriously, how many people marry their mistress?

@SJoseph,

One may take the few passages in the Bible which seem in translation to mention homosexuality and interpret them as one wishes, or understand them in the light of the times in which they were written.

I would think, though, that a Christian would search the Bible to see what, if anything, Jesus actually (or was reported by eye-witnesses to have) said about it. That He was silent on the subject seems to be a strong consideration.

In the absence of direct evidence about HIS position, then one should consider whether a condemnation of homosexuality is consonant with Jesus's general teaching about loving one's neighbor or about casting stones- - - or about his expiation on the cross for all human "sins."

@jgweed,

Honestly, can we ever know what love really is. Do we want to?

Lily;82279 wrote:

I'll do my best, could you please provide me evidence that shows the same thing about heterosexuals?

But you are saying that homosexuals can't love, only lust? :perplexed: Seriously, how many people marry their mistress?

Nah, I've changed my mind. We still don't know how love works, so it's impossible to see, by looking at the brain. If I would get really scientific with you, I would also almost have to dismiss God as a possible explanation for love and tell you how evolution has made the brain. I'm not sure if I believe in devine, unselfish love, so I probably shouldn't try to convince you about it either. I have been reading some brain articels, and noone explains how love really works. But I tell you this: I find it very hard to belive that lust only,could keep a marrige together. When Sweden allowed gay-marriges there were a lot of couples who got married. Homosexuals in a relationship are more than "f*ck buddies". F*ck buddies don't live with each other for several years. Gay people love eachother, and I am sure that their love is the same as heterosexuals.
I remember a magazine article about two women who lived together. One of them said that "it is so nice to live with someone who can say: btw, I polished your shoes too, when I was finished with mine". That sounds like something more than lust.

I don't see why I should have to prove something so you can defend your opinions. If you don't want to answer a curious teenager, I think your a bit grumpy. And lazy.

P.S
Sorry, I'm trying to be nice, but my strong opinions makes it a bit difficult.

@Lily,

Don't be sorry lily,especially when your right.xris

@SJoseph,

In my opinion, love and lust have absolutely nothing in common; as a matter of a fact they are "more" opposites of each other. Love in the public domain is different than lust in the public domain, of which, IMO, lust runs rampant as it relates to heterosexuality and in some areas homosexuality as well.

I will agree there are some behaviors that have been ever present in the public domain that show affection such as holding hands between members of the opposite sex. That has been understood and accepted for thousands of years by the large majority of the human beings on this planet. IMO, it is a part of a natural process and that is "why" it is considered natural. I would want my child to be "exposed" to that natural, innocent show of affection as I would indeed offer that kind of "public affection" to his Mother/my wife as well, as I held her hand and kissed her on the cheek.

Now having said that, let me also reiterate the use of two words that have become "politically incorrect": NATURAL and MAJORITY in lieu of "minority rights" over "majority rules" issuing there is no such thing as "natural" opening the door to all things considered "un-natural" by that majority to be null and void in the public domain. The public domain being that domain in which our children are exposed to also including television, and the internet both which are rampant with lust and little love, IMO.

As I have said and do repeat, what two consenting "adults" (and I use the term adults extremely loose here) engage in sexually in their private domain, far and away from the eyes of a child in all cases is a matter for them only such as can be defined as that deep desire of a man for a woman, or those who choose hot man on man action or woman to woman. In all cases the public domain should be "child friendly" if even it it means giving up such innocent displays as holding hands between young boys and girls that has always been considered "natural" in lieu of the sexual mores or lusts such "alternative thinking" find no problem with in that public domain.

As to why, I would like to offer an opinion realizing there are and will be exceptions but by and large it has everything to do with the absence of the love of a Father to a son in their young years coupled with, who only knows what abuse that could have taken place for we all, male and female, have a tendency to mentally block those abuses out of our consciousness though they are "sub-consciously" still there and could be presented in and a part of our perception and personality.

L. Ron Hubbard interpretated this subconsciousness as the "reactive" mind and those experiences are what he called "engrams" and auditing that mind would allow an individual to seek that "devil", he called it, and face it and therefore eliminating it which would result in a person becoming a "clear". I think he quoted it, "...if there is an evil in this world, it is the engram", if I am not mistaken.

Personally anyone attempting to manipulate my mind does not fall in favor with me, but I have no idea of what others, in their life, have been subjected to and if Hubbard is right, neither do they as they have "blocked it out". If there are dangers to this "bio-feedback" process, if that is what it is, I don't know? But if it is close to the mark, it would explain a lot not only as it relates to being homosexual, but many other behaviors also. Again, in my opinion and trying to tie up looes ends in MY mind.

William

@Lily,

Lily;82292 wrote:

Honestly, can we ever know what love really is. Do we want to?

Nah, I've changed my mind. We still don't know how love works, so it's impossible to see, by looking at the brain. If I would get really scientific with you, I would also almost have to dismiss God as a possible explanation for love and tell you how evolution has made the brain. I'm not sure if I believe in devine, unselfish love, so I probably shouldn't try to convince you about it either. I have been reading some brain articels, and noone explains how love really works. But I tell you this: I find it very hard to belive that lust only,could keep a marrige together. When Sweden allowed gay-marriges there were a lot of couples who got married. Homosexuals in a relationship are more than "f*ck buddies". F*ck buddies don't live with each other for several years. Gay people love eachother, and I am sure that their love is the same as heterosexuals.
I remember a magazine article about two women who lived together. One of them said that "it is so nice to live with someone who can say: btw, I polished your shoes too, when I was finished with mine". That sounds like something more than lust.

I don't see why I should have to prove something so you can defend your opinions. If you don't want to answer a curious teenager, I think your a bit grumpy. And lazy.

P.S
Sorry, I'm trying to be nice, but my strong opinions makes it a bit difficult.

Sorry I took to long to respond though working 12.5 hour days puts a damper on thinking.

Finding proof that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love is just bonus points. The results, no matter what they were, would not push the argument strongly one way or another. Proof of homosexual love does not make it right just as proof of pathological disorders just not justify the actions accompanied with them.

Why do we frown at the actions of those whom are born with a tendency to kill? We do not base our beliefs on science we base them on morals. Whether or not you get your morals from a society, the Bible, etc... is irrelevant. The fact being you do not base your opinions on science. So to try and use science to disprove a moral opinion is surely an odd approach.

We must resort to the Bible.

What are your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 6:9?

@click here,

Why must we resort to the bible? Do you recommend we hang them,do you recommend we hang adulterers?

@xris,

xris;83783 wrote:

Why must we resort to the bible? Do you recommend we hang them,do you recommend we hang adulterers?

The title of this thread:
Quick Question on Homosexuality and the Bible

@click here,

click here;83786 wrote:

The title of this thread:
Quick Question on Homosexuality and the Bible

So why should that hinder your response to my question?

@xris,

xris;83787 wrote:

So why should that hinder your response to my question?

Well you had 2 questions, its pointless to respond to the first.

I think adultery and homosexuality are wrong. Why should they be hung?

@click here,

click here;83789 wrote:

Well you had 2 questions, its pointless to respond to the first.

I think adultery and homosexuality are wrong. Why should they be hung?

Well you could say i see no reference of these punishments in the bible. If you dont, others do,some see no reference to homosexuality by Jesus, but you obviously do.

@xris,

xris;83795 wrote:

Well you could say i see no reference of these punishments in the bible. If you dont, others do,some see no reference to homosexuality by Jesus, but you obviously do.

Where did I say that I know of reference to homosexuality by Jesus?

@click here,

click here;83773 wrote:

Finding proof that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love is just bonus points. The results, no matter what they were, would not push the argument strongly one way or another. Proof of homosexual love does not make it right just as proof of pathological disorders just not justify the actions accompanied with them.

Why do we frown at the actions of those whom are born with a tendency to kill?

Hazy question, and a bit of topic. Wrong is wrong I think most people belive, and most people think is killing wrong. But it's a really difficult question.

click here;83773 wrote:

We do not base our beliefs on science we base them on morals. Whether or not you get your morals from a society, the Bible, etc... is irrelevant. The fact being you do not base your opinions on science.

Sorry, I'm a daughter of two biologists, so I do.:shifty:

click here;83773 wrote:

So to try and use science to disprove a moral opinion is surely an odd approach.

We must resort to the Bible.

What are your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 6:9?

Really intresting quote, eventhough I never quite get why there are letters in the Bible. Anyway, I looked it up, both in the link you posted and in my swedish Bible. My Bible says those who "sins against the nature" (sorry, it was a bit difficult to translate, I hope it makes some sens) which could be a lot of stuff. Doesn't have to be homosexuals.
This isn't as many other places in the Bible when God says this and God says that, it's Paul who says it. But nice argument though, and yet another excuse for me for not being a christian.

I don't think we must resort to the Bible. Maybe we shouldn't look in a dusty old book for all the answers, maybe we should look in our hearts. But that's a bit of topic.

And, just a bit curious, is it ok for a gay couple to love eachother, as long as they don't have sex?

@click here,

click here;83827 wrote:

Where did I say that I know of reference to homosexuality by Jesus?

You did not but i thought you might have used all the bible instead of your selected scriptures. Who do you take your lead from, what constitutes as valid?

@Lily,

Lily;83832 wrote:

Sorry, I'm a daughter of two biologists, so I do.:shifty:

You are joking right? You can't obtain morals from science. Moral laws are not the same as physical laws of nature.

Lily;83832 wrote:

Really intresting quote, eventhough I never quite get why there are letters in the Bible. Anyway, I looked it up, both in the link you posted and in my swedish Bible. My Bible says those who "sins against the nature" (sorry, it was a bit difficult to translate, I hope it makes some sens) which could be a lot of stuff. Doesn't have to be homosexuals.
This isn't as many other places in the Bible when God says this and God says that, it's Paul who says it. But nice argument though, and yet another excuse for me for not being a christian.

I don't think we must resort to the Bible. Maybe we shouldn't look in a dusty old book for all the answers, maybe we should look in our hearts. But that's a bit of topic.

And, just a bit curious, is it ok for a gay couple to love eachother, as long as they don't have sex?

Just my paraphrases:

If you look at someone lustfully you have already committed adultery within your heart. Matthew 5:28

If you hate someone you have already committed murder with in your heart. Matthew 5:21-22

There are different types of love. I love my brother, but that is not a sin as I do not wish to have sexual relations with him.

If a guy loves a guy in a sexual manner that is still wrong. If you desire to kill someone but you do not go through with it would you not agree that the desire is not a 'right' thought?

What makes your heart more of an authority on morals then the Bible?

Out of curiosity what Swedish translation were you using, and where are you from in Sweden?

Why is Paul not an authority?

Another excuse for you not to be a Christian? Who said you chose that? Course that is another deep topic in itself.

---------- Post added 08-17-2009 at 04:11 PM ----------

xris;83836 wrote:

You did not but i thought you might have used all the bible instead of your selected scriptures. Who do you take your lead from, what constitutes as valid?

I have no idea what you are asking.

@click here,

Tell me how how do you select what is relevant,from the scriptures..old and new...If Christ never found it necessary to condemn the homosexual why do you think your dogmatic friend Paul and your esteemed self find it essential.

@xris,

xris;83859 wrote:

Tell me how how do you select what is relevant,from the scriptures..old and new...If Christ never found it necessary to condemn the homosexual why do you think your dogmatic friend Paul and your esteemed self find it essential.

You do realize that all of Jesus life was NOT compiled in the Bible right?

@click here,

click here;83908 wrote:

You do realize that all of Jesus life was NOT compiled in the Bible right?

So could you answer the question,please..

@SJoseph,

If you are using the bible as your source of morals then you are morally bankrupt.

How is it you ignore all the other injustice. Do you bash babies against rocks? It says you should do it in the bible. Do you stone disobedient children to death? It says you should in the bible.

Anyone who uses the bible as some moral basis and quotes passages where they get their morals from are completely ignoring the other phrases where it is absurd and barbaric. You can't just pick and choose your lines and say this is relevant and that line there is not.

The bible does not qualify for ANY moral standard.

Philosophy Forum

Homosexuality and the Bible

Quick Links

My Account

able2know