The bible and homosexuality

But you still have not answered the questions in Message 136

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

After laughing for about 30 seconds, I have to break my vow to ignore you to ask you a very simple question. If you are not "made" to defend your beliefs, what the f*** are you doing here?You still haven't pointed out a single specific reference in the bible (that doesn't have holes in it like Leviticus) regarding the issue at hand. What you have been successfully doing, however, have been putting a lot of mumble jumble fluff in my thread.If you wish not to defend any of your beliefs or claims, I respectfully ask that you leave us be. So far, your fluff have been completely useless to our discussion on my origional question in message number 1.Oh yeah, if you intend to stay, could you please stop ignoring jar? ...and I thought desdamona was bad...This message has been edited by Lam, 06-09-2004 10:28 PM

---

The Laminator

​

truthlover understates:

quote:

---

Since that time is the general opinion of a lot of people that one or two things he endorsed or tolerated should not be endorsed or tolerated, such as slavery or a subordinate role for women.

---

Why the trepidation? Slavery and subordination of women are pretty big, immoral no-noes in my estimation. The fact that Paul promoted both is enough for me to conclude that his epistles are of no moral value whatsoever.Incidentally, you never answered my question about Paul's condemnation of effeminacy. You said that Paul really meant 'cowardice' and that scripture condemns cowardice. I asked why it is that the bible never condemns the cowardly actions of Lot in Genesis 19. Care to answer that?

quote:

---

...there are a very, very few (people) who would agree with you that many of the practices he endorsed or tolerated are immoral.

---

I think I could find more than a very, very few people who would agree that slavery is immoral. Perhaps I might also find at least a significant minority who would agree that women should be allowed to speak in the church.

quote:

---

"We have come to realize" is utterly meaningless in the west, where the idea of how people should live varies immensely.

---

Perhaps I'm naive, but I have enough faith in mankind to feel safe in saying that almost all civilized people, at least here in the Western Hemisphere, have come to realize that slavery is immoral. I say this in spite of being fully aware that the Southern Baptist Church didn't get round to recognizing that slavery was immoral until the 1990s, but now that they have taken that bold, trailblazing step I think this statement would be true even here in the Deep South.

I hope this suffices as an answer.

Dear PecosGeorge: Actually, I am bible-ignorant. I know not what the bible says. However, I am intrigued by your point of view, solely because it appears to be contradictory. Whether your point of view arose from the bible or whatever doesn't concern/amuse me in the least.I never asked you to defend scripture. As a matter of fact, my posts so far haven't even included the word "God" or "bible". I merely asked you to defend your own point of view. You CAN do that much, can't you?Patiently awaiting your reply.(By the way, I think someone by the name of "jar" is awaiting your reply also)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

George, you still haven't answered my question from post 160, either. And I can't speak for Jar, but I would prefer an answer over an empty response.

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

It's a true mystery, and I don't blame you for being confused.

explain 'point of view' and 'contradictory'. I see no point of view of mine expressed, therefore, no contradiction.

Look, it is a simple question. Regardless of your personal beliefs about homosexuality, how can you deny others the same economic, social and political rights to the contractural agreement called Marriage?But you still have not answered the questions in Message 136

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well no, thus far it's just you making two contradictary statements.If you can't reconcile those statements, shouldn't that say something to you about the point you're trying to make?

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

You mean PG is actually trying to make a point? He has no idea how to construct a sentence, let alone a whole paragraph. He can't punctuate properly. He therefore can't make coherent statements. When challenged on one of his incoherencies, he can't understand the questions being asked of him. It should be no surprise to anyone that, on the rare occassion when he manages to convey a complete thought, he contradicts himself. How can he be coherent when he doesn't even understant what it means to be coherent?If I'm wrong and the guy does have some minuscule degree of intellect, then it should be blatantly obvious that he refuses to debate in good faith. Either the moderators are ignoring this thread or they don't care.

To PecosGeorge:Your point of view:In reply to my question pertaining whether you regard homosexuality (the attraction, not the act) is a conscious choice made by the individual or determined by genes, you reply was: I deduced from the above that it is your opinion that:1) Homosexuality (the attraction, not the act) is unacceptable to God.and,2) You think that someone, somewhere (sorry, you didn't provide sources for these) is trying to find a genetic disposition to homosexuality.This is your point of view, as paraphrased from post 151, yes?Since my question specifically asked for YOUR opinion, I can either deduce that you:
a) Believe that homosexuality is determined by genetic disposition.
or
b) You haven't answered my question.Now I know that you wouldn't be so rude as to answer my question with a paragraph of words that do NOT answer my question, so I chose (a) above and assumed that you believed homosexuality is determined by genetics.Now, if it is your opinion that:
1)Homosexuality (the attraction) is a sin.
and,
2)Homosexuality is determined by genes (so the individual involved has no choice in the matter).then it follows that God has made an individual who is unacceptable to God! Surely that is impossible?! Thus my conclusion that you have contradicted yourself. Please explain/elaborate on any points above.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I haven't been following this hot argument much, but I'll stick my two cents in.I work as a lifeguard and see many scantly clad beautiful girls on a daily basis. The desire or urge to pursue a relationship leading to sex with a hot chick is a very strong part of my genetic make-up and upbringing. This desire in itself is not sinful. If I let that desire or urge turn into actually "wishing" I could have sex with them or "fantasizing" about it then it is lust and very wrong.The homosexual desire, I will assume, is a combination of genetics and upbringing. If I had homosexual tendencies, the desire or urge to pursue a relationship leading to sex with another man for me would be just as much a test to my strength of will as my heterosexual urges. If I were to let my homosexual desires get out of control to the point where I start acting on them to either pursue such a relationship or "fantasize" about such a relationship, that would also be wrong.

If one of them was your wife, would it still be wrong?Surely there must be some context where those feelings could be an appropriate expression of love, or you wouldn't have them, right?Well, so why is it that there's an appropriate expression of your feelings for women, but another man can't ever have an appropriate expression of his exact same feelings for another man, under any circumstances?None of us are asking folks to validate every single homsexual relationship. We just want it to be possible that a homosexual relationship could be considered valid, given that it's based on the same feelings and biology that lead to valid heterosexual relationships.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-10-2004 10:52 PM

I am not married and could possibly never get married. For me to ignore those desires my whole life would be difficult, but do-able.The reasons I reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.1) God created man for woman and woman for man both in body and soul.
2) Authority is a necessary part of life even in a relationship between two people.
3) Marriage is a covenant before God to last a lifetime.
4) God said it was wrong (don't start with the Bible passage debate again)'nuff said.