WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

Homosexual behaviour, not homosexuality. You have it the wrong way round - the command is derived from the abhorrence, not the other way round, and God abhors evil because it is contrary to his nature. That's not circular; it's objective (or, as you would see it, an initial axiom). We both employ a starting point when it comes to differentiating right from wrong, and our starting points differ so of course our opinions of right and wrong will differ; you can't call it "inherently inconsistent" or "illogical" any more than your own...arguably, the Christian axiom is more logical because "good" and "evil" actually exist.

Perceived detriment isn't necessarily detriment; Kayin has already demonstrated very capably that the perceived "wrong" of abstaining from sex is in no way detrimental; it's a myth. And the word cultural is crucial here - the truth of the Bible is not subordinate to cultural sensitivities. In saying that, I would need a specific example of Christians going against the culturally accepted norm and negatively affecting society in doing so. The example of God asking a person to steal cars is moot; that's not what God does, even though people might claim it.

You misunderstand me; I said God abhors evil; disobedience is a behaviour, an attitude...not a person. And, as I already said, I don't think anybody is "evil;" I believe simply that we all have an inclination to disobey God. The Bible is very clear on one thing: God loves his people, unconditionally. And I don't accept that I'm a "bit flawed;" I accept that my innate propensity to disobey God affects every area of my life; I consider myself better than nobody. And yes, I believe that the entire Bible is the word of God.

You don't need to apologise for your opinion - I've heard similar countless times before.

I'm afraid it does - the only way you can possibly believe that anything outside your consciousness exists is on faith; everybody presupposes (rationally, I might add) that what is perceived to be real actually exists. Science cannot verify that, nor can logic - it could all be an elaborate hoax, but we rationally accept that it is real and that there are indeed other minds like our own, other persons. Sorry to disappoint - everybody has faith of one sort or another.

And I can understand why you say this - I would too if I was an atheist.

 

Obviously it is part of creation, because it exists. But OK: why does God not mean for it to happen? Basically: what is God's problem with it?

Why is homosexual behaviour contrary to God's nature?

 

All right, folks, I have a long, drawn out explanation that I feel probably ought to be posted, that may answer a few of these questions, but I'm on my way to Birmingham to get copies of all my medical records. It's an errand that must occur, so I'll address this when I get back, if you guys don't mind.

I'm not sure it will help anyone, but at least it may explain the generative thought processes behind some of this. At least it'll be an attempt.

 

Why is harm wrong? Because you say it is - same thing. The Bible says evil is contrary to God's nature, and we believe on faith that this is true. I'm sure Kayin will explain it more eloquently than me.

 

There is a functional rationale behind why I label deliberate harm as wrong. It is not arbitrary.

What you are basically saying is that homosexual behaviour is wrong because God says it is, and we should just take that on faith. Then why do we have free will?

 

Homosexuality is not a part of how humans create, it is not how life is brought into this existence, thus it flies in the face of creation, and the laws of creation. By extension if flies in the face of god.

 

There are two reasons why people have sex (both validated by the Bible): procreation, and as an act of the loving bond between partners. You appear to suggest that the act of procreation trumps the act of love. Is that not in contradiction with Jesus' teachings, which posits love as the most important commandment of all?

Or do you have sex just to have babies?

 

"Partners" in the Bible is exclusively male and female, and sexual partners are husband and wife...always. Like I said in response to Kayin, it is patently clear in the Bible that God's intention was for the pairing of male and female to be a full representation of love which emphasises both diversity and unity; aside from being openly decried in the Bible, homosexual sex simply is not God's design.

"Sex is for love and babies, always" is a teaching of the Roman Catholic church, not a teaching of the Bible.

 

Procreation does not trump the act of love it is the result of love with a desire to create and bring life into this existence. You seem to equate sex with love.

People have sex all the time without love being involved, and when the result turns into promiscuous behaviour then it becomes detrimental to the individual and the society at large.

 

Building up material wealth, not giving away your earnings/property to anyone who asks and not choosing to live "by humble means" also fly in the face of God/Jesus, but of course modern Christians would find those instructions almost impossible to live by, so they are quietly ignored with the occasional good deed or charitable event in their place.

The point is that we live in a very different world now than was inhabited a couple of millenia ago, so it is impossible to adhere to all of the teachings of the bible. Modern Christians must make do with interpreting and extrapolating what is important to them.

Pre-Christianity homosexuality (amongst many other "vices") was prevalent and even an essential part of some societies. I'm sure opinion was divided then as it is now. There is no doubt that creation is not possible between same-sex partners, but it existed long before even the earliest portions of the Bible were written 500-600 years BC. What right did those early scholars have to cast their opinions upon such behaviour? Behaviour that had been practised for many millions of years prior?

 

Out of curiosity I just looked up Leviticus to determine the context of the anti-gay law. And sure enough there it was:

20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

However it also says:

• You shouldn't cut your hair, or shave.
• If you curse one of your parents you should be killed.
• Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.
• Adulterers should be put to death.
• However if you sleep with a slave girl promised to another man there should be a punishment, just not death.
• Blasphemy is punishable by death (stoning).
• If you're the daughter of a priest, and you sell your body, you should be burnt alive.
• Wizards, yes wizards, should be stoned to death.
• The punishment for period sex is ostracism.
• And finally, disabled people (by both heredity & accident) are unclean and defile places of worship by their presence.

So there's some context to put the anti-gay sentiment alongside. Slave-girls and wizards and cripples. Oh my!

 

Lol just read that, Sounds reasonable to me Sorry I just had to laugh at it

 

Procreation is not always the act of love, or desire to create a new life.

There have been many a sexual encounter that has resulted in procreation, without either party wanting it.

Many of these encounters are also not the result of promiscuous attitudes. Many couples fall pregnant after a quick fumble.

 

Witchcraft Act 1735

Still active in England (I believe) and in Northern Ireland and Israel. Not sure what it says about stoning though.

 

Nonsense; if god created men & women then he created them homosexual & hetrosexual- humans are members of the animal kingdom too and some members of said kingdom swing the 'wrong' or both ways. If god didn't want gays then he'd have made sure to 'design' them a little bit better in the brain department, no?

To speak nothing of free will....

I'm sorry, where is the 'harm' in a homosexual relationship again?

EDIT: close enough...

 

And I assume that when a young couple have sex without fully understanding what they are doing and without protection resulting in the man impregnating the female that that somewhow would challenge the content of my post?

As you put it yourself - the intent behind the interaction was not a desire to create and bring life into this existence.

 

And again: why is it not in God's design? What is His problem with it?

No, I argue that one of the functions of sex is to foster a bond of love and intimacy, and that the Bible supports this view; it is not just for procreation. Again: do you have sex only for the purpose of having babies? Or do you use any form of contraceptive? Should women after the menopause stop having sex? Should infertile couples not have sex?

Do you endorse the prosecution of witches?

 

see and here is where you'll have a problem, Paul even explicitly states in Corinthians a few times that these are his words not the lords. yet certain Christians will continue to roll out Paul's epistles to define what god commands rather than the teachings of Jesus (you know the son of god according to the church), states in the gospels.
Jesus was predominately about love, forgiveness not being judgemental and worshipping God and doing unto your neighbour as yourself. where as Paul can't understand why people want to get married because they should be spending their time praying like he does.

 

VipersGratidue made a point which I expanded upon. I've done so in the past which then alluded to herbal medicine and the prosecution of its practitioners.

It's in the context of the realationship between man and women, and correct, its' not only for procreation, I never said it was.

 

If procreation brings into existence a child that is homosexual (which it does) then it's part of creation. How can something be against the 'laws of creation' when their existence is a normal part of nature?