Ok... change my mind. It would be a relief.

[Goshin]

There is nothing in the bible attributable to Timothy, there are only letters written TO him, nothing written BY him. I thought you'd studied the bible for 5 decades?

I knew that, slipped my mind amid the discussion. Let he who has never had a brain-fart cast the first stone, though.

 

[Goshin]

Because if God is indeed the Creator of all that we know, including you, me and all of the untold billions of people that have walked this Earth with us and before us, then He would be creating sin himself by allowing homosexuals to come into existence. It is a paradox. One which cannot be doubled-down on and ignored, lest one wants to be looked at as not being logically sound. Gotta recognize the logic traps for what they are, man.

EDIT: To use scripture, look at Genesis 1:27 -- God created man in His image. The implications of that are profound when in tandem with homosexuality. Since God created man, and man is in His image, then homosexuality comes from God Himself.

Well, then we get into the question of whether homosexuality is inborn, or how someone gets that way. While it is popular to suppose that it is inborn, it has not been scientifically established as fact with proof of causal agents, and experts in the field disagree on causes and means.

There's also the question of whether one is merely a puppet of one's genetics and biochemistry, or an agent of free will. People are born with all kinds of tendencies, they don't necessarily have to indulge them. I was apparently born with a predilection to violence... which I keep contained and controlled every day of my life...

 

[Goshin]

All of which are now culturally unacceptable because of knowledge we as the human race have attained. This is idneitical to the issue with homosexuality.

And "love thy neighbor" never stopped slavery in the past.

It's never been practiced very well on a societal level either.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I would say that the reason for that is that we do not have prominent, loud movements in our culture demanding that adultery, fornication, promiscuity, incest, bestiality, etc. be accepted as normal and proper, and given equal treatment in our society and under our laws to proper marital relations between husband and wife. We don't have loud, obnoxious hangs seeking to intimate and bully anyone who dares to call these other sins for what they are, and in some cases, seeking to destroy the livelihoods of those who dare to say so.

Have you ever turned on the MTV, or any tv for that matter? adultery, fornication, promiscuity, are rammed down our throats everywhere we go.

I live in NJ, I have an office in Chelsea NYC, I have never had any gay people in my face, when does this happen?

As for marriage? Get the government out of it, that way if a pro gay church wants to "marry" two people of any sex, that's thier business, not yours or mine.

The moment we start thinking we need to keep "those people" from having the same rights as "proper people", we take a step back from true liberty.

It is not that homosexuality is any better or worse than other forms of sexual immorality; it is the belligerence with which those who adhere to this particular form of evil lash out against those who stand for decency and morality that has drawn so much attention.

It's a false fight. You want the government to say "marriage" is one thing, the other want to say it's something else. The real fight, the real answer should be to stop asking the government for permission as to what we call our relationships.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I can't speak for anyone but me. My views on all those have been pretty consistent, joking aside, for a very long time.

As for who starts all the homosexuality threads, again I can't speak for anyone but me. This is the only one I've started in as long as I can remember.

I know, I am making a larger point, your views are consistent always have been, and I take no issue with your faith or your beliefs other than I am on the side which doesn't really care what two people call their relationship. It's a word, it really doesn't mean much in todays society, gay or straight.

 

[Goshin]

Have you ever turned on the MTV, or any tv for that matter? adultery, fornication, promiscuity, are rammed down our throats everywhere we go.

I live in NJ, I have an office in Chelsea NYC, I have never had any gay people in my face, when does this happen?

As for marriage? Get the government out of it, that way if a pro gay church wants to "marry" two people of any sex, that's thier business, not yours or mine.

The moment we start thinking we need to keep "those people" from having the same rights as "proper people", we take a step back from true liberty.





It's a false fight. You want the government to say "marriage" is one thing, the other want to say it's something else. The real fight, the real answer should be to stop asking the government for permission as to what we call our relationships.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Marriage is chiefly a social institution, an economic merger, and for some a religious institution. Governments involvement should be minimal. I favor a return to private "marriage contracts" instead of a license, spelling out in broad terms what is expected of each spouse, what constitutes breach of contract, and what will be done if contract is breeched.

But SSM isn't really the topic here, and I don't want to derail the thread over it. The topic is whether there is a Biblical/theological reason to question if the NT scriptures that seem to declare homosexuality a sin, apply to voluntary non-exploitative homosexual relationships.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Sorry, that doesn't work.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the 150 BC complete "Great Isaiah Scroll." With very little substantial differences from what we have today.

Actually if you want to get into other "scrolls" and Gnosis, There are several KEY differences in the books chosen to be omitted from the bible.

Including acceptance of homosexuality.

Granted these aren't in the bible we know today, but if you wish to include things like the dead sea scrolls, we need to include all of it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I'm inclined to agree with this. Marriage is chiefly a social institution, an economic merger, and for some a religious institution. Governments involvement should be minimal. I favor a return to private "marriage contracts" instead of a license, spelling out in broad terms what is expected of each spouse, what constitutes breach of contract, and what will be done if contract is breeched.

But SSM isn't really the topic here, and I don't want to derail the thread over it. The topic is whether there is a Biblical/theological reason to question if the NT scriptures that seem to declare homosexuality a sin, apply to voluntary non-exploitative homosexual relationships.

You need government to enforce a lawful contract. You don't need a church to marry. Ministers are authorised by the goverment to marry people, the religion is an extra.

 

[Goshin]

The word of god or the word of man who wrote the "Word of God"?

Rev that is really outside the scope of this discussion, and near the outer edges of the RDF rules. The Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and Christians take it rather seriously; I certainly do. While there is internal debate on how literally or absolutely to take it, it is not appropriate in this venue to attempt to discredit the Christian holy book.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm inclined to agree with this. Marriage is chiefly a social institution, an economic merger, and for some a religious institution. Governments involvement should be minimal. I favor a return to private "marriage contracts" instead of a license, spelling out in broad terms what is expected of each spouse, what constitutes breach of contract, and what will be done if contract is breeched.

But SSM isn't really the topic here, and I don't want to derail the thread over it. The topic is whether there is a Biblical/theological reason to question if the NT scriptures that seem to declare homosexuality a sin, apply to voluntary non-exploitative homosexual relationships.

On that particular topic, my point stands, the one you dismissed as not good or whatever. That the bible NT forbids many things, yet some are given far more weight than others.

 

[Goshin]

You need government to enforce a lawful contract. You don't need a church to marry. Ministers are authorised by the goverment to marry people, the religion is an extra.

Yes, but the point is gov is not defining the contract in advance. But that's another topic really, let's not derail the thread.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Rev that is really outside the scope of this discussion, and near the outer edges of the RDF rules. The Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and Christians take it rather seriously; I certainly do. While there is internal debate on how literally or absolutely to take it, it is not appropriate in this venue to attempt to discredit the Christian holy book.

I know, I just saw CC's post and am deleting them. lol


There was no "discredit" intended but factual observation. I have respect for those of faith, any faith.

 

[Goshin]

On that particular topic, my point stands, the one you dismissed as not good or whatever. That the bible NT forbids many things, yet some are given far more weight than others.

You lost me there. Not sure where you got that from what I said.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You lost me there. Not sure where you got that from what I said.

Perhaps I misread your intent and meaning then of post #104

 

[Goshin]

Perhaps I misread your intent and meaning then of post #104

Not sure.


I'll have to get back to you later on that, I'm about to re-floor the back bathroom soon as I finish lunch.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Frankly, no.

Accepting that the book is an authority because the author is infinitely wise because it says so in the book is pretty much the definition of circular logic. There is no independent verification of Gods wisdom, and if the claims in there don't make sense then there doesn't seem to be any reason even in the book to call him wise.

Moderator's Warning:

And... let's remember that we are in the Religion Forum. No attacking of religion or the tenets thereof are allowed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, then we get into the question of whether homosexuality is inborn, or how someone gets that way. While it is popular to suppose that it is inborn, it has not been scientifically established as fact with proof of causal agents, and experts in the field disagree on causes and means.

There's also the question of whether one is merely a puppet of one's genetics and biochemistry, or an agent of free will. People are born with all kinds of tendencies, they don't necessarily have to indulge them. I was apparently born with a predilection to violence... which I keep contained and controlled every day of my life...

I don't think it's particularly relevant anyway.

All of us are subject to temptation. Some of us may be more prone to violence than others. Some may be more prone to stealing. Some may be more prone to adultery.

If I see something that belongs to you, I covet that object, and am very tempted to steal it, perhaps it is because there is something inborn in me that makes me more likely to covet that particular object than someone else would be. Perhaps “God made me that way.” Does this mean I am exempt from the commandment not to steal?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Have you ever turned on the MTV, or any tv for that matter? adultery, fornication, promiscuity, are rammed down our throats everywhere we go.

I live in NJ, I have an office in Chelsea NYC, I have never had any gay people in my face, when does this happen?

We know that all manner of immoral behavior has come to be common an and accepted as normal in our society, even though many of us still know better.

When's the last time you heard of anyone losing their job, or having their business threatened or sued, for suggesting that adultery is wrong?

As for marriage? Get the government out of it, that way if a pro gay church wants to "marry" two people of any sex, that's thier [sic] business, not yours or mine.

The moment we start thinking we need to keep "those people" from having the same rights as "proper people", we take a step back from true liberty.

It's a false fight. You want the government to say "marriage" is one thing, the other want to say it's something else. The real fight, the real answer should be to stop asking the government for permission as to what we call our relationships.

Mine's the side that recognizes what marriage is, what it has always been, and what it will always be; as opposed to the side that is trying to radically redefine it into something that it has never been, and can never be.

 

[Jango]

Well, then we get into the question of whether homosexuality is inborn, or how someone gets that way. While it is popular to suppose that it is inborn, it has not been scientifically established as fact with proof of causal agents, and experts in the field disagree on causes and means.

There's also the question of whether one is merely a puppet of one's genetics and biochemistry, or an agent of free will. People are born with all kinds of tendencies, they don't necessarily have to indulge them. I was apparently born with a predilection to violence... which I keep contained and controlled every day of my life...

I attribute the overwhelming majority of our actions to our genetics, brain chemistry and prior experiences. Truth be told, I can't really name an instance where we are agents of free will as typically something inside of us (one of the aforementioned three) dictates our course of action. I come with the same history of violence, and while I try to control it I absolutely recognize the fact that I can go from being domesticated to undomesticated at a moment's notice, which is dependent on stimulus, of course. For me, it is a combination of having bipolar (born with) and PTSD (picked up along my journey through this thing we call life). When it comes to homosexuality, the person's natural inclination is attraction for a member of their own sex, obviously speaking. And while many have remained closeted over the years, that course has been overwhelmingly dictated by prior experiences and of course, fear, which stems from prior experiences I.e. seeing so-and-so come out and them being systematically shunned by their friends and even family. This overall issue (if homosexuality is truly natural) will become less of one the more we learn about our brains and the way they work. But say a year from now, the results come back that yes, indeed, homosexuality is completely natural and a person is born with that component already installed -- armed with that irrefutable knowledge, does it change your stance at all, especially when combined with what I said in my first post I.e. the logic behind it all?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I know, I am making a larger point, your views are consistent always have been, and I take no issue with your faith or your beliefs other than I am on the side which doesn't really care what two people call their relationship. It's a word, it really doesn't mean much in todays society, gay or straight.

And there's the problem. We're devolving into a society where marriage—of of the most foundational and institutional institutions of any stable human society—will be considered something that is just “a word [that] really doesn't mean much in todays society”. Too many people are failing to acknowledge or understand the destructive impact that this is already having, and will yet have, on our society.

 

[chromium]

Well, then we get into the question of whether homosexuality is inborn, or how someone gets that way. While it is popular to suppose that it is inborn, it has not been scientifically established as fact with proof of causal agents, and experts in the field disagree on causes and means.

There's also the question of whether one is merely a puppet of one's genetics and biochemistry, or an agent of free will. People are born with all kinds of tendencies, they don't necessarily have to indulge them. I was apparently born with a predilection to violence... which I keep contained and controlled every day of my life...

There are things some of us are born with that we truly cannot escape. Certain genetic disease are accepted as such, with no blame assigned to the individual, like down syndrome. Why don't such people just "free will" their way out of it? It doesn't boil down to "free will" vs determinism in *all* aspects of life.

Certain traits are inescapable, while others are to varying degrees. Some are more prone to obesity, or alcoholism, but many people can largely overcome that. I would suggest the main difference between violent compulsions and homosexuality is that one is harmful to others if acted on, and the other is not. In addition, *not* acting on sexual/romantic attraction makes it rather difficult to find a partner. What is left then as disincentive, except this notion of sin? You'd be surprised how quickly that can break down with nothing else standing in the way, especially when no one knows just where the line is drawn (the temptation itself? self pleasure? sex?)

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And there's the problem. We're devolving into a society where marriage—of of the most foundational and institutional institutions of any stable human society—will be considered something that is just “a word [that] really doesn't mean much in todays society”. Too many people are failing to acknowledge or understand the destructive impact that this is already having, and will yet have, on our society.

This is not accurate. In fact, the opposite is happening. The idea of what constitutes marriage has appropriately expanded to create institutional stablity in more relationships, relationships that do not differ from traditional ones.

 

[chromium]

What if the intent is simply what it clearly states?

Then that just takes the discussion into terms the OP and this forum's rules are not willing to indulge.

 

[RGacky3]

Where did he do that?? Let's look at the scripture, in context. That means, words that are attributed to him, discussing marriage. Is it just assuming man/woman, or is it directly prohibiting same gender???

I'ts not just assuming, the point he was making is that marriage is a creational issue, God created them male and female so Marriage is sacred, because God brought them together, and part of the issue is the difference of the male and female and the making of the 2 one flesh.

"god created them male and female" is key to Jesus' argument here.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'ts not just assuming, the point he was making is that marriage is a creational issue, God created them male and female so Marriage is sacred, because God brought them together, and part of the issue is the difference of the male and female and the making of the 2 one flesh.

"god created them male and female" is key to Jesus' argument here.

That shows that most marriages will be between men and women, but where does that restrict it to only men/women?