Homosexulaity and the Bible

[786]

From what basis do you have to disagree other than a religious preference on your part?

If the study is only checking for homosexuality- then that is a single perspective- If the study checks for both homosexuality and bisexuality then that is another perspective- I've read studies where high percentage of 'homosexuals' have been 'aroused' by the opposite sex.

Studies are dependent upon the 'question asked'- That question only gives you certain answers and without 'other questions' what you are left with is perspective.

Cut it.

Okay

This is not an exclusive conversation between two members. You are introducing yet another red herring for people to read in your posts.
There are many members taking part in an open Internet Forum Discussion.

No, I'm just saying that if my original post is a 'red herring' then forget about it and concentrate on what is not a red herring which I'm assuming is the discussion between you and Doreen... or is that an illogical advise?

Peace be unto you

[Neverfly]

If the study is only checking for homosexuality- then that is a single perspective- If the study checks for both homosexuality and bisexuality then that is another perspective- I've read studies where high percentage of 'homosexuals' have been 'aroused' by the opposite sex.

Studies are dependent upon the 'question asked'- That question only gives you certain answers and without 'other questions' what you are left with is perspective.

No.
Those are factors in a study and not "perspectives."

Many studies factor that in, have a control group and statistically calculate probability of error.

Studies in general are not conclusive. Rather, they are statistical.

[786]

No.
Those are factors in a study and not "perspectives."

Yes they are factors- but then due to the limited questions the whole study is simply a perspective- (at least according to me)- its not like your and mine- obviously the study means more than just 'any perspective'- but I guess a better way to describe it is as a 'part of the puzzle'.

Many studies factor that in, have a control group and statistically calculate probability of error.

And the control group in this study would be? Normal people?

Rather, they are statistical.

Yes.

I think the thread is going on a tangent because of my comments- I'm out of this discussion, I made a mistake posting here-

Peace be unto you

[Spectrum]

I have posted this before but I believe it is important, and may even save some souls from the sin of homosexuality, so I will post again:

Sex is for procreation: that's it's use! Just as there is normal or ab-normal there is use or ab-USE. Any act of sex that is not directed towards procreation is an act of ab-use. BUT another use of sex is LOVE...(phew!)

[Orleander]

...Sex is for procreation: that's it's use!...

so no sex after menopause
no sex for anyone who is sterile
no oral sex

Did I get that right?

[Neverfly]

I have posted this before but I believe it is important, and may even save some souls from the sin of homosexuality, so I will post again:

Sex is for procreation: that's it's use! Just as there is normal or ab-normal there is use or ab-USE. Any act of sex that is not directed towards procreation is an act of ab-use. BUT another use of sex is LOVE...(phew!)

Love is not procreation.

[sandy]

The vast majority of Christians are taught that being a homosexual is a sin. Do you think that Christians being taught this, has a real impact on whether or not Christians think homosexuality is or is not moral?
The reason I got to thinking of this is because Japanese and Native Americans were pretty much neutral about homosexuality - at least in regards to whether it was right or wrong behavior. Traditionally many Native American who were homosexual were accepted as medicine men (often they didn't fight as warriors). In Japan, as in Greece, Samurai were sometimes homosexual. It wasn't until contact with Christian Europe that homosexuality took on a negative vestige. Of course this itself was probably perpetuated in religion based on earlier Roman notions of what makes for a good Citizen.
Ultimately I was pondering about the underlying ideas of freewill. Japanese are not even aware that of the effects Christianity have had on their Buddhist/Shinto society. Are they REALLY make a free decision or forming an unbiased opinion? I don't think so. Which got me to thinking - they aren't really free. They're a product. Of course, that would go for Christians even more so. Which makes one wonder: Why (would God) proscribe certain benign behaviors as immoral if "He" wants humans to make free choices? If there is something "inherently sinful" about homosexuality, well, do we really need a God to tell us? Shouldn't we, as freewill creations, discover that by ourselves? And be "judged" based on those discoveries?
The Bible therefor seems designed to eliminate freewill. Not to grant it. So? Why even give it to begin with?

Yes, the Bible shapes our beliefs but my parents taught me it was wrong, too. I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom and I have a lot of gay friends/acquaintances/business associates who I love dearly.

[Spectrum]

so no sex after menopause
no sex for anyone who is sterile
no oral sex

Did I get that right?

Correct! No anal sex either! But I did state that another use for sex (which actually negates using sex for procreation) is LOVE!

[Giambattista]

I have posted this before but I believe it is important, and may even save some souls from the sin of homosexuality, so I will post again:

Sex is for procreation: that's it's use! Just as there is normal or ab-normal there is use or ab-USE. Any act of sex that is not directed towards procreation is an act of ab-use. BUT another use of sex is LOVE...(phew!)

Correct! No anal sex either! But I did state that another use for sex (which actually negates using sex for procreation) is LOVE!

So which is it? And how, in your estimation, does this potentially "save" some souls from the "sin" of homosexuality? If it's only for procreation, then it cannot be for love. If it is for procreation and love, what does that mean? You say "negates" in your qualification. So does the use for love override the use for procreation? They are not inextricably linked together. You can have one, the other, both, or even neither. In the case of rape, sex would essentially be for pleasure, a sense of power, etc.

Are you going to present some sort of bizarre unified duality wherein each is ideally (according to God's design) included, but where heterosexuals are excused from utilizing both purposes, whilst homosexuals are not? That is, heterosexuals can forgo the procreation side of sex because of the "love" factor and because they, in their uncorrupted state, are able to conceive children, but homosexuals can't use love as an excuse for sex because they are physically unable to procreate by default, and therefore sterile couples or even those who practice birth control are excused, but homosexuals are not?

That seems to be an attitude I have come across before. A rather peculiar and contradictory philosophy.

Your two "excuses" for sex are contradictory, as you have explained them.
It's either one or both, but not one and/or the other. That doesn't make sense.

Please, explain yourself.

[Giambattista]

So, Spectrum. You have nothing to add to your explanation? You can't flesh it out? (no pun intended, regardless of subject matter)

[Spectrum]

Pleasure can be disregarded because the only way you can know that is if you have tried it, and you do not have to experience it to study it. Put simply, before you try the practical, you do the theory. It is as true for driving as it is for life.

[Giambattista]

Pleasure can be disregarded because the only way you can know that is if you have tried it, and you do not have to experience it to study it. Put simply, before you try the practical, you do the theory. It is as true for driving as it is for life.

Is this a response to me? If so, I can't see what bearing it has on what I asked you.

Maybe you shoudl reread that post I made again?

[Giambattista]

Oh, and to actually address the heart of this topic:

I answered "Other" because frankly, people mistranslate, misinterpret, and generally do what they want with the Bible.

There are passages that say something different depending on translation. The KJV for example has the word "sodomite" in several places which has traditionally been translated as homosexual. Unfortunately for the KJV-Only crowd, the original word in Hebrew had nothing to with homosexuality as we know it, nor did it even have anything to do with Sodom or people who live there!!!

Then there is the interpretation. Does it mean this straightforward, is it speaking about this specifically? Or something like "Back then, did they really have an understanding of psychology and gender, or was everything black and white? And should we interpret this differently based on our understanding of modern times?"

And of course, there are those who say "God knows the human mind better than humans, who are you to challenge God's Word with pop psychology?"

Really, there are differing degrees to how Christians interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality, some taking polar opposites, and others being more moderate.

It is hard to say definitively YES because some Christians are very tolerant, if not openly homosexual, and others are staunchly opposed. And some don't think it's a big deal or don't care. To some, the Bible places a moral emphasis on other more important things, rather than which gender you're attracted to.

And that's why it's such a complicated issue. Because it isn't just about careless sex between to guys (or girls) in many cases, but involves deep attractions that are only different from heterosexuality because of the gender. Some say it isn't right to deprive people of a loving relationship because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, and others think that no such thing as love can possibly exist between two men or women.

"There is no gay love, only gay lust!" I have heard it said.

[ggazoo]

the Bible clearly defines that homosexuality is immoral/sin. As a Christian I agree.

Well, as a Christian myself, I disagree.

[draqon]

Well, as a Christian myself, I disagree.

oh really. so where in the bible does it say that having sex between man and man or woman between woman is acceptable and moral thing to do?

[Enmos]

You are only a Christian when it suits you.

[draqon]

You are only a Christian when it suits you.

when am I not a Christian?

[superstring01]

Why does it matter what the bible says? We're talking about a book where a guy raised the dead & turned water into wine, the earth was created in only six days (and is only a few millennia old), a giant pillar of fire & cloud floated above a bunch of desert wandering ex-slaves to protect them, a man's wife was turned to salt for looking at a burning city, and a man was swallowed by a giant sea bass and spit out a few days later. Seriously? What next, we'll start talking about Hindu deities as if they were respectable reference points for morality and start referring to Zeus and Hera for ethical standard.

Silly.

~String

[PieAreSquared]

So you're gay because you are anti-bible then ?

[jayleew]

Well, as a Christian myself, I disagree.

I can understand if you disagree with the Bible as a Christian, but how can you disagree what the Bible says when there are at least 5 references that appear to be telling the reader that homosexuality is immoral. And, there is one that is more than is fairly plain. As a Christian your perogative is to deflect any controversial text in the Bible, and side one way or another. But since when did Jesus approve of "playing with fire." There are many many more references to controversial subjects that say if you believe something is wrong, or that it might be wrong, it is better to error on the side of it is wrong. But the act is between the person and God. The example is set with people who are vegetarians in the Bible. It says that people should not deny or hold prejudice against another person if they eat meat and you do not. Likewise, if you are among vegetarians, and you like meat, you should not eat meat in front of them because they believe it is wrong.

Long story short, the Bible does say to stay out of people's business and don't judge so long as the sin isn't brought forward. Controversial things are to be done in private so as not to sin by causing another to see what he/she believes is a sin and lose faith.