Is God against homosexuality?

[Oxnard]

Actually that is not true, as the issue of preserving human life, ranks above that of keeping kosher. It is better to eat food that is not kosher, than to starve. As to whether such things as pig, should even be called food, seems debatable depending on who you talk to. If that interpretation is correct, then failing to keep to kosher dietary guidelines, is likely not a capital offense. However, murder would be. See Genesis 9:6.

There are variations of kosher. Many Messianic congregations are only biblically kosher, but not rabbinically kosher. That means, they follow what the Bible says, but do not agree with certain rabbinic interpretations. Thus, cheese with beef is allowed. There is a verse in the Bible that says not to seethe a calf in its mother's milk, which sounds like something very cruel to do. Well I see no relationship to that, and a cheeseburger, as the cheese probably did not even come from the same farm as the beef. Some Jews are very strict about kosher, and can not eat dairy and meat products in the same meal, or do not even use the same refrigerator or stove for both, requiring special kitchens with diary and meat sections being kept separate, even separate baking dishes, but I see nothing in the Bible requiring any of that.

You should also keep in mind, that both Christianity and Judaism, do not do forced conversions, as Islam attempts to. Both believe that you should convert by choice, and not by force. Although many matters of morality obviously must include both believers and non-believers, what about the matter of kosher, requires this? Many matters, seem to be answerable more to God, than to the church or synagogue, and definitely the government has not much to say (no jurisdiction) about many things.

Homo-phobic is an invalid word, as it implies things that make no sense. A better word, that you may have noticed me, saying, is population-phobic. People do not "decide" to be highly populous, they just are. As our ancestors believed, population is what it is. There are problems with trying to cite individual people for collective sins, as I as an individual, can not control what the collective does. What is this I hear about London trying to charge people "congestion" fees of motorists? One person does not cause traffic congestion, so why fault individuals for problems caused by poor road design or by corrupt politicians? Also, I can not fault India for having such a huge population, as huge population is not a sin, nor does having 10 children cause the population to be huge.

Fine, you want to select a different passage from the Old Testament to hold up as a comparison to the homosexuality issue?

How about murdering non-virgin brides on their wedding night?

Or killing disobedient children?

Or expecting women to marry their rapists?

Why limit it to the Old Testament? Do you think slaves should be obedient to their masters? Do you think they should be more obedient if their masters are Christian? What about killing non-believers? The New Testament has fewer such passages, but it does have them.

What about things in the Bible that are not morally horrifying, but merely wrong? Do you think that you can affect the patterns on the fur of livestock offspring by changing what the parents look at while they mate? Do you believe the firmament is a physical barrier that separates the sky from the waters above it?

The point I am trying to make is that even literalists are forced to pick and choose which passages of the Bible they will follow and interpret literally. Thus, even if the original poster is from a literalist tradition, I don't think he should worry about the theological implications of his homosexuality too much. The more relevant question is how his local Christian community is likely to treat him because of his homosexuality.

 

[pronatalist]

Fine, you want to select a different passage from the Old Testament to hold up as a comparison to the homosexuality issue?

How about murdering non-virgin brides on their wedding night?

Or killing disobedient children?

Or expecting women to marry their rapists?

Why limit it to the Old Testament? Do you think slaves should be obedient to their masters? Do you think they should be more obedient if their masters are Christian? What about killing non-believers? The New Testament has fewer such passages, but it does have them.

What about things in the Bible that are not morally horrifying, but merely wrong? Do you think that you can affect the patterns on the fur of livestock offspring by changing what the parents look at while they mate? Do you believe the firmament is a physical barrier that separates the sky from the waters above it?

The point I am trying to make is that even literalists are forced to pick and choose which passages of the Bible they will follow and interpret literally. Thus, even if the original poster is from a literalist tradition, I don't think he should worry about the theological implications of his homosexuality too much. The more relevant question is how his local Christian community is likely to treat him because of his homosexuality.

Some of those need verse references.

The question about women marrying rapists, was answered by Hank Hannegraaff, on his radio program, probably also in his newly revised book, The Complete Bible Answers book, or something to that effect. He was talking about Mosaic Law, and how a raped woman was damaged, culturally, and would be unable to marry, which meant poverty for her.

I am studying Hebrew, and the same word for slave can also mean servant, so we would also need to look at context and verse references. Should you obey your boss, if you don't want to go looking for another job? Technically, your employer owns your job, not you. But I think Bible study is not so much your aim, as trying to find supposed fault with the Bible?
What verse about the fur patterns?

The firmament appears to be talking of something that existed before the Great Flood, during a time in which it had not rained. That describes a radically different climate than that which we are used to. A mist came up from the ground to water everything. Sounds like like a terrarium, in which there is no rain. Why no rain? Perhaps the atmospheric pressure was greater, which might help keep water vapor more suspended in the air. (I have seen a video in which a beaker of water boils vigorously, at room temperature, underneath a bell jar which has had the air vacuumed out.) Sounds very humid. I doubt that they had much problems with forest fires, before the Great Flood.

It says in Leviticus that man should not lie with man, as with woman. Is there a non-literal way to interpret this? Actually, that verse does not seem to say to me, that 2 men can not share a bed, if you have more men than beds, but then they should not share it in the same way as with a woman. Turn away in opposite directions. Also, imagine big families that grow up in small homes. In many developing countries, they will be sharing beds, because there are so many of them, and perhaps just one family bed. This verse is clearly saying, that sex is only to occur between opposite sexes, and considering the context, no sex with animals (bestiality), etc., makes it clear this is the correct interpretation. God created sex, so God can tell the humans that he created, how sex is supposed to be enjoyed. The Bible says that sexual sins are sins against the body even, meaning that they damage the body. Could be a reference to STDs and other kinds of damage? Also against oral sex. The vagina is the only bodily orifice designed to receive the penis. And that is a biological fact, not just an opinion.

 

[Exbiker]

People on the right did not move farther right. Rather the left moved even more extremely left.

The multi-dimensional nature of your idiocy, and it's apparent depth, no longer enable me to pass by in silence.

Sexuality is nothing to do with right or left. / politics. I know more strongly right wing gay people, than left wing ones.

You know almost nothing. Open your eyes and ears, start to learn. Before it's too late...

 

[ConanTheBarber]

You know almost nothing. Open your eyes and ears, start to learn. Before it's too late...

He knows the Bible, which is, in Bertrand Russell's words, "words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

 

[Oxnard]

Some of those need verse references.

The question about women marrying rapists, was answered by Hank Hannegraaff, on his radio program, probably also in his newly revised book, The Complete Bible Answers book, or something to that effect. He was talking about Mosaic Law, and how a raped woman was damaged, culturally, and would be unable to marry, which meant poverty for her.

I am studying Hebrew, and the same word for slave can also mean servant, so we would also need to look at context and verse references. Should you obey your boss, if you don't want to go looking for another job? Technically, your employer owns your job, not you. But I think Bible study is not so much your aim, as trying to find supposed fault with the Bible?
What verse about the fur patterns?

The firmament appears to be talking of something that existed before the Great Flood, during a time in which it had not rained. That describes a radically different climate than that which we are used to. A mist came up from the ground to water everything. Sounds like like a terrarium, in which there is no rain. Why no rain? Perhaps the atmospheric pressure was greater, which might help keep water vapor more suspended in the air. (I have seen a video in which a beaker of water boils vigorously, at room temperature, underneath a bell jar which has had the air vacuumed out.) Sounds very humid. I doubt that they had much problems with forest fires, before the Great Flood.

It says in Leviticus that man should not lie with man, as with woman. Is there a non-literal way to interpret this? Actually, that verse does not seem to say to me, that 2 men can not share a bed, if you have more men than beds, but then they should not share it in the same way as with a woman. Turn away in opposite directions. Also, imagine big families that grow up in small homes. In many developing countries, they will be sharing beds, because there are so many of them, and perhaps just one family bed. This verse is clearly saying, that sex is only to occur between opposite sexes, and considering the context, no sex with animals (bestiality), etc., makes it clear this is the correct interpretation. God created sex, so God can tell the humans that he created, how sex is supposed to be enjoyed. The Bible says that sexual sins are sins against the body even, meaning that they damage the body. Could be a reference to STDs and other kinds of damage? Also against oral sex. The vagina is the only bodily orifice designed to receive the penis. And that is a biological fact, not just an opinion.

Look, I get it.

You are a literalist and you don't want to admit that you have to pick and choose. I get that you have rationalizations for why your creative reinterpretation of passages don't count as metaphorical and should still be considered a literalist interpretation, but surely even you can see how strained that argument is?

I've heard all the rationalizations for this before. The rationalizations are weak and only meant to convince other literalists who simply want to accept the conclusion that literalism is not an incoherent theological position.

I mean, seriously, do you really think the servant excuse flies? Roman society and the Roman economy was based on slavery. Those words were originally intended for a Roman audience who were part of a society and an economy incredibly dependent on slaves and constantly acquiring more slaves. Do you really think their first thought upon hearing that word was to interpret it as "employee" rather than as slave?

 

[marlins]

No, very simply - God doesn't make any junk! We are all part of God's masterpiece. Let go and let God!

 

[freeballininnyc]

It depends what you mean by "an occurrence"... If you mean publicly shareable events, then I don't agree. Everything external can be explained logically and rationally. Absolutely all of it, in principle. For explanations to be demonstrably true requires evidence, observation, not just logic. That's an extra step. But dude, were nearly there. Gravity waves, Higgs boson. What more do you feel we need?

There is a limit to rationality when it comes to understanding ourselves. Our values, our motivations, our freedom. But that's perfectly OK. We don't need to "understand" that - we are it. We do need to appreciate each other better - but that takes time. Because it's not an explanation or demonstration. It's an agreement - a project. And that is more complicated, subtle, difficult.



Is there any truth at all? About anything?

Or is everything "individual choice"?'

If you have let's say a standing cluster of shiny steel cones, reflecting each other like mirrors reflecting mirrors, in an apparently "infinite" regress, what you see - your opinion - will depend on exactly where you stand. But there's still a truth somewhere, and if you move around checking things out from different angles, in diffferent light conditions, you have a better chance of finding a more complete picture.

I have two specific instances in my life where my behavior at the time was not typical behavior for me. In both instances that change kept me from being harmed. There is no logical explanation for why I behaved differently than the norm either time. Some would call it coincidence or intuition. I attribute it to something else. There's no harm in that at all.

As far as truth and does it really exist - the answer is subjective. Sure, there are absolutes in this world but there is also, as the cliche goes, lots of gray. But that's the fallacy with the science vs. God argument. Science relies on proof. Belief in God relies on faith. As far as religion goes, that certainly makes things trickier. As I stated in my previous comment, I do not equate God and religion. For me, that clears up a lot of the issues people have on all sides of the argument.

 

[temptotalk]

Some of those need verse references.

The question about women marrying rapists, was answered by Hank Hannegraaff, on his radio program, probably also in his newly revised book, The Complete Bible Answers book, or something to that effect. He was talking about Mosaic Law, and how a raped woman was damaged, culturally, and would be unable to marry, which meant poverty for her.

I am studying Hebrew, and the same word for slave can also mean servant, so we would also need to look at context and verse references. Should you obey your boss, if you don't want to go looking for another job? Technically, your employer owns your job, not you. But I think Bible study is not so much your aim, as trying to find supposed fault with the Bible?
What verse about the fur patterns?

The firmament appears to be talking of something that existed before the Great Flood, during a time in which it had not rained. That describes a radically different climate than that which we are used to. A mist came up from the ground to water everything. Sounds like like a terrarium, in which there is no rain. Why no rain? Perhaps the atmospheric pressure was greater, which might help keep water vapor more suspended in the air. (I have seen a video in which a beaker of water boils vigorously, at room temperature, underneath a bell jar which has had the air vacuumed out.) Sounds very humid. I doubt that they had much problems with forest fires, before the Great Flood.

It says in Leviticus that man should not lie with man, as with woman. Is there a non-literal way to interpret this? Actually, that verse does not seem to say to me, that 2 men can not share a bed, if you have more men than beds, but then they should not share it in the same way as with a woman. Turn away in opposite directions. Also, imagine big families that grow up in small homes. In many developing countries, they will be sharing beds, because there are so many of them, and perhaps just one family bed. This verse is clearly saying, that sex is only to occur between opposite sexes, and considering the context, no sex with animals (bestiality), etc., makes it clear this is the correct interpretation. God created sex, so God can tell the humans that he created, how sex is supposed to be enjoyed. The Bible says that sexual sins are sins against the body even, meaning that they damage the body. Could be a reference to STDs and other kinds of damage? Also against oral sex. The vagina is the only bodily orifice designed to receive the penis. And that is a biological fact, not just an opinion.

I'm curious pronatalist, how would you and people that feel the way you do about homosexuality feel about what was being said in the thread below?

Is a straight man who hooks up with another man really straight?

 

[Oxnard]

No, very simply - God doesn't make any junk! We are all part of God's masterpiece. Let go and let God!

I'm curious pronatalist, how would you and people that feel the way you do about homosexuality feel about what was being said in the thread below?

Is a straight man who hooks up with another man really straight?

At a time when farmers and agricultural scientists are in a desperate race to produce enough food for everyone, why would anyone be a pronatalist? That seems like an incredibly irresponsible position to take.

 

[pronatalist]

At a time when farmers and agricultural scientists are in a desperate race to produce enough food for everyone, why would anyone be a pronatalist? That seems like an incredibly irresponsible position to take.

Human life is amazing and beautiful. More and more people would be glad to live. Human reproductive urges are very powerful, and humans enjoy being "in heat" for 365 days a year. We have no limited "breeding season" for we can mate and reproduce year-round. Huge numbers of people have practical, philosophical, cultural, and religious objections to all methods of birth control. Humanity expands by another billion people per 12 years. Why would now not be a good time to be pronatalist, when I should be pronatalist at all times in history?

Even though a few population-phobics may opine that feeding people is like putting gasoline upon the already raging global "population fire," does not mean that people should still not reject birth control and let their families grow naturally. Birth control is unnatural and anti-life.

Human fertility is very hard to control, and human populations seem to grow so easily. And huge numbers of people are okay with their fertility and see no need to control it, even as their families may grow naturally at the full rate of their body's fecundity. As a pro-lifer, I also very much agree with people having baby after baby after baby, as I also have many objections to birth control, and have no expectation that people ought to restrain the natural growth of their numbers.

 

[Oxnard]

We already have millions starving to death at an incredible rate, and you are arguing for making that problem worse. On purpose.

That may be beautiful to you, but it is a sentiment that I find to be anything but beautiful.

Every time people give reproductive rights to women in third world countries, the birth rate goes down, but the results are far more than just a reduction in starvation. Poverty declines, quality of life improves, the level of technology and education improve. There are a very large number of things that get better in third world countries from the simple act of giving women in that country control over their own reproduction.

If that many things improve from relatively slight reductions in birth rates, what do you think happens when you deliberately try to make the birth rate higher? All the things that improve when women get reproductive rights in third world countries will get worse.

Heck, Saudi Arabia once had one of the highest per capita incomes in the world thanks to all that oil money, then they literally fucked their way into poverty. Pronatalism had incredibly negative consequences for even a relatively developed country like Saudi Arabia. I shudder to think what effects pronatalism would have on third world countries.

 

[hypolimnas]

God created sex, so God can tell the humans that he created, how sex is supposed to be enjoyed.

This is pure gold.

Are you able to resolves these contradictions for us too?

www.answering-christianity.com: 101 Contradictions in the Bible.

 

[hypolimnas]

Every time people give reproductive rights to women in third world countries, the birth rate goes down, but the results are far more than just a reduction in starvation. Poverty declines, quality of life improves, the level of technology and education improve. There are a very large number of things that get better in third world countries from the simple act of giving women in that country control over their own reproduction.

A key point is that literacy improves the life of women, it reduces fertility, improving lives and communities. This is why education for women is so important, especially in developing countries. Education for girls means they are more likely to marry later (as adults not children), and have children later.

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/p&p015.pdf

 

[pronatalist]

We already have millions starving to death at an incredible rate, and you are arguing for making that problem worse. On purpose.

That may be beautiful to you, but it is a sentiment that I find to be anything but beautiful.

Every time people give reproductive rights to women in third world countries, the birth rate goes down, but the results are far more than just a reduction in starvation. Poverty declines, quality of life improves, the level of technology and education improve. There are a very large number of things that get better in third world countries from the simple act of giving women in that country control over their own reproduction.

If that many things improve from relatively slight reductions in birth rates, what do you think happens when you deliberately try to make the birth rate higher? All the things that improve when women get reproductive rights in third world countries will get worse.

Heck, Saudi Arabia once had one of the highest per capita incomes in the world thanks to all that oil money, then they literally fucked their way into poverty. Pronatalism had incredibly negative consequences for even a relatively developed country like Saudi Arabia. I shudder to think what effects pronatalism would have on third world countries.

"Reproductive rights" should mean more respecting people's rights to reproduce. Yet it is a deceptive term that means just more NWO rampant contraceptive pushing? I thought people already had the right, to not spread their legs?

Why do you say that Saudi Arabia literally fucked their way into poverty? Are you suggesting that even with all that oil money, they should not have any right to naturally grow their population? What of the horrible way that they, due to their false religion, still treat women? A woman can not drive a car by herself, and is treated like poverty? There are many women pro-lifers who love having their big families, who are not backwards thinking like that. Corrupt governments spread poverty, and not innocent babies who do not make the stupid policies.

Things did not improve due to lower birthrate, but rather people with more wealth, tend to find other things to do other than produce babies all the time. Also, what about the underlying NWO rampant contraceptive pushing? As they say, there is nothing about having money in one's pockets that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The Demographic Transition Theory is very flawed and deceptive due to this. A country could easily modernize and improve things, and birthrates remain high, and that would be the ideal situation, to allow the numbers of people coming alive to soar, and yet also modernize so as to better meet the needs of the naturally-soaring population numbers.

I am very much for development and for modernization, because more population + more poverty is not the ideal situation, in spite of all the stupid population theories that seem to glorify poverty and the lack of proper reforms. Nigeria is already about as dense as China, with people, and by 2050, they could be even more human-dense than current-day India. I am confident that those lands can easily hold the huge population numbers that they are fast heading for, with proper development, which the stupid population theories distract from the need for. And is it really so much about advocating for higher birthrate, as it is that many regions of the world tend to grow so fast in population, that the number of women of childbearing age is growing so rapidly? Every year, there is around 25 million more fertile baby holes in the world, than the year before. And naturally, babies are starting to come out of more and more vaginas as human populations understandable swell. It is not so much that we are having so many babies, as it is that there are just now so many people having babies. Well everybody has the natural or God-given right to live, including procreation, but I can find no basis in any of the old human rights documents, of any supposed right to a spacious planet. I have long been for population accommodation only, but very much against any efforts at population control, at that only tramples upon human rights and human dignity.

 

[pronatalist]

A key point is that literacy improves the life of women, it reduces fertility, improving lives and communities. This is why education for women is so important, especially in developing countries. Education for girls means they are more likely to marry later (as adults not children), and have children later.

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/p&p015.pdf

Literacy does not necessarily reduce fertility. What about all the underlying NWO contraceptive pushing?

I met a woman book author, who had 12 children. Apparently high literacy did not reduce her fertility.

More people should marry younger, if they are ready.

How can people marry "as children"? That is playing games with the language, as I read that the term "teenager" was not even in use, until 1941. There was no such thing as teenagers, for they were considered to be adults, with all the benefits and duties that comes with being an adult, such as having children and growing their families. People still marry young in many cultures.

 

[fournineteenfiftynine]

Who is God?

 

[Brodie888]

Religions serve many purposes. Many of them good. But most religions are also run like multi level marketing companies. It's mostly about getting as many members under the religion as possible. When Christianity was beginning, it was at a time of persecution/disease/poverty/death from childbirth etc. They needed as many members to breed as possible. So many of the rules created were to fulfill this need. Calling something a sin is just an easy way of stopping people from arguing/questioning.

 

[temptotalk]

Who is God?

Just about anybody you want him/her/it/they/us to be? I mean, thats how imaginary friends work right?

 

[Oxnard]

A key point is that literacy improves the life of women, it reduces fertility, improving lives and communities. This is why education for women is so important, especially in developing countries. Education for girls means they are more likely to marry later (as adults not children), and have children later.

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/p&p015.pdf

Yes, improving literacy is also part of that formula, but what use is that literacy and improved education if they are not given reproductive control?

 

[pronatalist]

Yes, improving literacy is also part of that formula, but what use is that literacy and improved education if they are not given reproductive control?

Why should the people have any need of more reproductive control? They have always had the option of not spreading their legs, and not planting the human seed. However, abstinence is generally not thought practical for married people. Far better to just let families grow naturally, than to go without sex.

Surely a more modernized and educated society, has far more means to cope with and adapt to their growing numbers? Much of the modernizations that we have seen, are really for the purpose of needed changes for an increasingly human-dense world. Why do we have toilets in our homes anyway? For mere comfort and convenience? No, it is to keep human wastes from running down the ditches and along the streets. We have toilets, because there is just so many people all around. We are not spread out miles from our nearest neighbors, like back in pioneer times. Why do we have refrigerators? To reduce food wastage, which presumably helps people feed larger families, and to feed more people. Why modern gas and electric cookstoves? To eliminate millions of smoky cooking fires from huge cities. Why do we not burn our leaves in the cities anymore? Because there are just too many people living too close together, to have that many leaf piles smoking and smoldering nasty stinking smoke all throughout the city. I think in the spacious countryside, sure, burn away. Burn your sticks and logs and leaves. It smells sort of nice to get a whiff of burning leaves while driving, so long as the smell does not linger too much and get too thick.

That the world has now so many people, all the more convinces me, that people do not want to control their fertility. And they should not have to. There are places all around that we can put more people.