Does God Approve of Gays?

NWRatCon said:

Nope, projection indeed. I was merely noting my low opinion of your ability to discuss anything having to do with either rationality or theology.

Click to expand...

You have the measure of her.

Elvira said:

Lust is passion, any way you slice it so think again...lol...

Click to expand...

Lust is subsumed by passion; it isn't equivalent to it. The distinction is important here.

An analogous example would be "murder" and "killing". Murder is subsumed by killing (all murder is killing) but not all killing is murder. Killing as a matter of self-defense or as lawful punishment for a crime aren't murder, for example.

COTO said:

The Bible doesn't condemn "being gay". It condemns specific behaviours: men sleeping with men, women sleeping with women, men acting and dressing as women, and vice versa; as well as thoughts and actions (e.g. fantasizing, viewing pornography) that encourage these appetites.

Some men are born with tremendous wealth but are commanded to not be avaricious. Some men are born with a predisposition to addiction but are commanded to eschew addiction. Some men are born with (or develop in the course of their childhood) a predisposition towards violence, hatred, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, fits of anger, and a litany of other vices and perversions.

There isn't a man on Earth who doesn't struggle with carnal human nature, nor is there a man blessed in every way so as not to struggle with something--indeed many things--on a daily business. Forgiveness, loving one's enemies, self-control, longsuffering, eschewing covetousness, forsaking sin, and resisting all manner of temptation are lifelong battles fought day by day. Nevertheless, God commands man to overcome, to choose good over evil, and He promises true Christians, who love His Law and live by His every Word, the sure power to overcome all things with His help.

To the man with perverse sexual appetites, the charge is no different: Don't act on them, don't feed them, don't dote on them, and, with God's help, overcome them day after day until this sojourn on Earth is over. Merely possessing the appetites (i.e. "being gay") doesn't make one a sinner. Sin is transgression of the Law. Merely possessing carnal appetites is the human condition.

Click to expand...

And your opinion that such activity is perverse is misinformed and isn't welcomed either, because it assumes that such persons are wicked and in need of correction. They don't. You're in need of correction for your erroneous and backward beliefs.

Some men are born with an overwhelming desire to force their religious beliefs upon an entire society, because they believe God commanded them to do so. I am commanding you to get your nose out of my private affairs, or the private affairs of my friends. It's none of your business, and it's none of God's business.

COTO said:

Lust is subsumed by passion; it isn't equivalent to it. The distinction is important here.

An analogous example would be "murder" and "killing". Murder is subsumed by killing (all murder is killing) but not all killing is murder. Killing as a matter of self-defense or as lawful punishment for a crime aren't murder, for example.

Click to expand...

I'm genuinely curious, and we should pursue this offline, since it is off topic: How do you reconcile those verses with, for example, Genesis 16 (Re:Hagar); and Genesis 19:36-38 (Lot and his daughters), and the various verses about slaves and wives? I could go on, but I suspect you get my point. Where in the Gospels does Christ condemn homosexuality? You may guess that I have some firm views on the subject.

NWRatCon said:

I'm genuinely curious, and we should pursue this offline, since it is off topic: How do you reconcile those verses with, for example, Genesis 16 (Re:Hagar); and Genesis 19:36-38 (Lot and his daughters), and the various verses about slaves and wives? I could go on, but I suspect you get my point. Where in the Gospels does Christ condemn homosexuality? You may guess that I have some firm views on the subject.

Click to expand...

I also find it odd that homosexuality, if it is indeed considered some horrible foundational sin within the Judeo-Christian ideology, that it doesn't even so much as warrant an entry in the 10 Commandments? Perhaps that's why the Gospel authors never saw fit to place teachings about homosexuality into the mouth of Jesus?


OM

NWRatCon said:

I'm genuinely curious, and we should pursue this offline, since it is off topic: How do you reconcile those verses with, for example, Genesis 16 (Re:Hagar); and Genesis 19:36-38 (Lot and his daughters), and the various verses about slaves and wives? I could go on, but I suspect you get my point. Where in the Gospels does Christ condemn homosexuality? You may guess that I have some firm views on the subject.

Click to expand...

Neither bestiality nor cursing/assault one's parents nor many other grave sins proscribed by the Law in the Old Testament are explicitly mentioned in the gospels. Dr. Gagnon puts it as well as I ever could: "What of Miller’s argument based on frequency of explicit mention? Bestiality is mentioned even less in the Bible than homosexual practice and incest gets only comparable treatment, yet who would be so foolish as to argue that Jews and Christians in antiquity would have regarded sex with an animal or sex with one’s mother as inconsequential offenses? Infrequency of mention is often an indicator that the matter in question is foundational rather than insignificant. You don’t have to talk a lot about something that most everyone agrees with and that few persons, if any, violate." (ibid.)

Nevertheless, Paul's epistles, which are every bit as much a part of scriptural canon, include several explicit mentions of homosexuality, invoking the very same language as in Leviticus, to make it absolutely clear for anyone with a shred of objectivity that the prohibition is foundational and ever in effect. God, of course, knew man would do everything in his power to twist the scriptures and justify his perverse appetites. The plain truth of the writings removes man's every excuse and lays bare his willingness to exalt his own laws and ideas above those of God. It's a very clear choice for Christians: you can trust in the "wisdom" of man and 21st Century society, or you can trust in the wisdom of God, but in the case of homosexuality (and "tolerance" of sexual sin generally), you can by no means do both.

As so-called "mainstream Christianity" slides into total apostasy, with more and more churches (that is, organizations of men) throwing out every countercultural doctrine in a desperate and ultimately futile attempt to arrest their decay, if you're a true, dedicated, Bible-believing Christian, you'd better be certain the church you belong to preaches the doctrines of the Bible, the full doctrines of the Bible, and nothing but the doctrines of the Bible.

In any case, if this answer doesn't satisfy you, it's best we discuss it in private as you suggest.

COTO said:

Neither bestiality nor cursing/assault one's parents nor many other grave sins proscribed by the Law in the Old Testament are explicitly mentioned in the gospels. Dr. Gagnon puts it as well as I ever could: "What of Miller’s argument based on frequency of explicit mention? Bestiality is mentioned even less in the Bible than homosexual practice and incest gets only comparable treatment, yet who would be so foolish as to argue that Jews and Christians in antiquity would have regarded sex with an animal or sex with one’s mother as inconsequential offenses? Infrequency of mention is often an indicator that the matter in question is foundational rather than insignificant. You don’t have to talk a lot about something that most everyone agrees with and that few persons, if any, violate." (ibid.)

Nevertheless, Paul's epistles, which are every bit as much a part of scriptural canon, include several explicit mentions of homosexuality, invoking the very same language as in Leviticus, to make it absolutely clear for anyone with a shred of objectivity that the prohibition is foundational and ever in effect. God, of course, knew man would do everything in his power to twist the scriptures and justify his perverse appetites. The plain truth of the writings removes man's every excuse and lays bare his willingness to exalt his own laws and ideas above those of God. It's a very clear choice for Christians: you can trust in the wisdom of man and 21st Century society, or you can trust in the wisdom of God, but in the case of homosexuality (and "tolerance" of sexual sin generally), you can by no means do both.

As so-called "mainstream Christianity" slides into total apostasy, with more and more churches (that is, organizations of men) throwing out every countercultural doctrine in a desperate and ultimately futile attempt to arrest their decay, if you're a true, dedicated, Bible-believing Christian, you'd better be certain the church you belong to preaches the doctrines of the Bible, the full doctrines of the Bible, and nothing but the doctrines of the Bible.

In any case, if this answer doesn't satisfy you, it's best we discuss it in private as you suggest.

Click to expand...

If it ain't in the commandments, it didn't happen.

COTO said:

Neither bestiality nor cursing/assault one's parents nor many other grave sins proscribed by the Law in the Old Testament are explicitly mentioned in the gospels. Dr. Gagnon puts it as well as I ever could: "What of Miller’s argument based on frequency of explicit mention? Bestiality is mentioned even less in the Bible than homosexual practice and incest gets only comparable treatment, yet who would be so foolish as to argue that Jews and Christians in antiquity would have regarded sex with an animal or sex with one’s mother as inconsequential offenses? Infrequency of mention is often an indicator that the matter in question is foundational rather than insignificant. You don’t have to talk a lot about something that most everyone agrees with and that few persons, if any, violate." (ibid.)

Nevertheless, Paul's epistles, which are every bit as much a part of scriptural canon, include several explicit mentions of homosexuality, invoking the very same language as in Leviticus, to make it absolutely clear for anyone with a shred of objectivity that the prohibition is foundational and ever in effect. God, of course, knew man would do everything in his power to twist the scriptures and justify his perverse appetites. The plain truth of the writings removes man's every excuse and lays bare his willingness to exalt his own laws and ideas above those of God. It's a very clear choice for Christians: you can trust in the "wisdom" of man and 21st Century society, or you can trust in the wisdom of God, but in the case of homosexuality (and "tolerance" of sexual sin generally), you can by no means do both.

As so-called "mainstream Christianity" slides into total apostasy, with more and more churches (that is, organizations of men) throwing out every countercultural doctrine in a desperate and ultimately futile attempt to arrest their decay, if you're a true, dedicated, Bible-believing Christian, you'd better be certain the church you belong to preaches the doctrines of the Bible, the full doctrines of the Bible, and nothing but the doctrines of the Bible.

In any case, if this answer doesn't satisfy you, it's best we discuss it in private as you suggest.

Click to expand...

Of course, assaulting one's parents goes against the commandment 'honor thy mother and thy father. It sounds like a really bad rationalization to me. From the focus, it seems to me that Robert Gagnon had formed an opinion, and tried to come up with a lot of weak justification for being so obsessed about it.

As for Leviticus, if you examine the passages in Hebrew, and look at it in a culture context, as well as where the mitzvah is written (as in book published), and the case the Christians give are not nearly as strong or convincing.

RAMOSS said:

Of course, assaulting one's parents goes against the commandment 'honor thy mother and thy father.

Click to expand...

The Law of God includes the commandments (i.e. the Decalogue) as well as the ordinances, statutes, and judgments of God. Christians are expected to observe all of these. This includes the food prohibitions, the Biblical holy days, the weekly 7th day Sabbath, and yes, the laws concerning sexual sins, including bestiality, incest, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and the whole lot.

The only laws not in effect today are those ceremonial/sacrificial laws that ended with the Levitical priesthood (as Christ Himself became our High Priest and instituted new symbols--the Letter to the Hebrews is most instructive on the subject) and those subsumed by greater, more stringent spiritual laws instituted by Christ at his first coming. For example, his commandments to love one's enemies, chasten one's thoughts, respect the laws of one's society (so long as they don't conflict with God's Law), and treat others as one wishes to be treated.

RAMOSS said:

As for Leviticus, if you examine the passages in Hebrew, and look at it in a culture context, as well as where the mitzvah is written (as in book published), and the case the Christians give are not nearly as strong or convincing.

Click to expand...

Unless you can come up with something more specific than this--preferably after having digested Dr. Gagnon's full paper and the hundreds of references therein--we're at an impasse. This is a topic I researched a decade ago. Regrettably, any Hebrew scholar with a pet thesis, a consummate desire to excuse homosexuality, and a penchant for historical revisionism can claim to be an expert and publish an immense amount of crap to muddy the waters. The lengths to which some "experts" (well-credentialed men, no less) will go to contrive arguments boggles the mind, although I suppose this is true of most fields. It takes tremendous effort to investigate and ultimately debunk these claims (no doubt why poor Dr. Gagnon has run himself ragged over the years) and, having proved the issue to myself many times over years ago, I'm presently uninterested in any further investigation.

If you have specific links and the material therein existed prior to 2010, there's an 8/10 chance I've already read it. For anything I've missed or anything novel, while I'll take note of any references you provide, the best I can do is pledge to put them in a lengthy queue for low-priority future research. Perhaps if I have an abundance of free time in future I'll have the chance to properly look everything over again.

COTO said:

The Law of God includes the commandments (i.e. the Decalogue) as well as the ordinances, statutes, and judgments of God. Christians are expected to observe all of these. This includes the food prohibitions, the Biblical holy days, the weekly 7th day Sabbath, and yes, the laws concerning sexual sins, including bestiality, incest, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and the whole lot.

The only laws not in effect today are those ceremonial/sacrificial laws that ended with the Levitical priesthood (as Christ Himself became our High Priest and instituted new symbols--the Letter to the Hebrews is most instructive on the subject) and those subsumed by greater, more stringent spiritual laws instituted by Christ at his first coming. For example, his commandments to love one's enemies, chasten one's thoughts, respect the laws of one's society (so long as they don't conflict with God's Law), and treat others as one wishes to be treated.

Click to expand...

They seem to be very selective about it, and use bad translations too. But, hey, you aren't Jewish, so it just doesn't matter. NO matter what, you are not bound by the Jewish laws., even if you misinterpret them.

NWRatCon said:

I can't think of any, can you? It seems to me, other than certain sects of Christianity, god doesn't spend a whole lot of time bemoaning the existence of homosexuality. What's your take?

Click to expand...

Thank You for that answer. I can't think of any either. You are correct.

So, I think you should be agreeing with my take... the assumption that someone reading the OP Title, the question asked... combined with the picture could reasonably think that none of those other gods fit the bill.

3 could fit the bill. The Torah, The Holy Bible and The Koran all mention homosexuality in a negative manner.

There is a reason for that... The Holy Bible (Christian Old Testament section of the Bible) and The Koran (Muslim) sourced that information from The Torah (Hebrew/Jewish)

Roseann

RAMOSS said:

They seem to be very selective about it, and use bad translations too. But, hey, you aren't Jewish, so it just doesn't matter. NO matter what, you are not bound by the Jewish laws., even if you misinterpret them.

Click to expand...

As a point of reference, the Law was given to the whole Israel, that is the twelve tribes descended from Jacob, only one of which was Judah (i.e. the Jews). Moses himself was a Levite, a descendant of Levi, and not a Jew. Hence to call the Old Testament "Jewish laws" is a misnomer.

It becomes even more so when we consider that when the nation of Judah (that is, the descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) returned from captivity in Babylon, they brought with them a litany of beliefs and practices from Babylonian and Assyrian societies which, contrary to the instruction of Moses and the prophets, became a canonical part of their religious practice. This was the state of affairs when Christ (himself a physical descendant of David, a descendant of Judah) began his ministry, and he reserved his starkest condemnations for the religious leaders of the time. What is called "Jewish law" or "Judaism" today contains the kernel of Israelite law but largely overrides it with the Talmudic law brought back from Babylon. Modern Judaism likewise includes laws, rules, and traditions syncretized from other religions in the Common Era, much like modern Christianity.

True Christians today, the ecclesia, are regarded by scripture as spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28–29: Galatians 3:29), and are beholden to the Israelite law as magnified and fulfilled (that is, completed) by Jesus Christ. This was exemplified perfectly by Christ himself, and was the practice of the First Century Christian Church.

COTO said:

As a point of reference, the Law was given to the whole Israel, that is the twelve tribes descended from Jacob, only one of which was Judah (i.e. the Jews). Moses himself was a Levite, a descendant of Levi, and not a Jew. Hence to call the Old Testament "Jewish laws" is a misnomer.

It becomes even more so when we consider that when the nation of Judah (that is, the descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) returned from captivity in Babylon, they brought with them a litany of beliefs and practices from Babylonian and Assyrian societies which, contrary to the instruction of Moses and the prophets, became a canonical part of their religious practice. This was the state of affairs when Christ (himself a physical descendant of David, a descendant of Judah) began his ministry, and he reserved his starkest condemnations for the religious leaders of the time. What is called "Jewish law" or "Judaism" today contains the kernel of Israelite law but largely overrides it with the Talmudic law brought back from Babylon. Modern Judaism likewise includes laws, rules, and traditions syncretized from other religions in the Common Era, much like modern Christianity.

True Christians today, the ecclesia, are regarded by scripture as spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28–29: Galatians 3:29), and are beholden to the Israelite law as magnified and fulfilled (that is, completed) by Jesus Christ. This was exemplified perfectly by Christ himself, and was the practice of the First Century Christian Church.

Click to expand...

If that is what you want to believe. You are wrong of course.

RAMOSS said:

If that is what you want to believe. You are wrong of course.

Click to expand...

Of course.

While I've got you here, out of curiosity, what is the significance of "RAMOSS" as a username? Is it an acronym? "Ramos S."? "Ram OS's?" Your profile page is a complete blank.

COTO said:

Of course.

While I've got you here, out of curiosity, what is the significance of "RAMOSS" as a username? Is it an acronym? "Ramos S."? "Ram OS's?" Your profile page is a complete blank.

Click to expand...

That's my business.

RAMOSS said:

That's my business.

Click to expand...

Uh... huh.

Religions Are Mankind's Only Sure Salvation

Rest Assured, My Opinions Sometimes Square

Republicans Always Make Our Streets Safe

I'll get it eventually.

COTO said:

Uh... huh. View attachment 67258708

Religions Are Mankind's Only Sure Salvation

Rest Assured, My Opinions Sometimes Square

Republicans Always Make Our Streets Safe

I'll get it eventually.

Click to expand...

Probably not.

Why do you think 'salvation' is even needed?

That's very Christian, and I am not Christian.

RAMOSS said:

Probably not.

Why do you think 'salvation' is even needed?

That's very Christian, and I am not Christian.

Click to expand...

The post is satire. I picked three of the most unlikely possibilities given what little I know about you.

Please disregard.