Explain validity of homosexual behavior (theology, Article, perfect, choices)

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by StainedGlassWarrior

Ah, the old argument-from-silence... It doesn't work. Jesus didn't speak about millions of sinful actions, and yet sinful they remain. Jesus studied and taught the Old Testament, which was the Word of God and God's morality is well-defined by Him in His Word. Homosexual acts are sin as commanded by God in the OT and upheld in the NT.

Jesus never taught acceptance of sin. Never. Not once. In fact, Jesus said if your arm causes you to sin, you should literally cut it off. It was that important to not sin.

As I said, marriage between a man and a woman is not sin in and of itself. While there may be 'secret' sins being committed in and around a marriage ceremony, they are not known to the baker. The baker is creating a work of art for a ceremony that is morally good. However, a homosexual wedding is morally wrong and is not hidden, but is celebrated through the cake. You cannot 'hide' the fact that it is a gay wedding and a Christian should not knowingly lend their God-given talents to works of iniquity.

Then why would you accept a "Christian" baker making a cake for two divorced people marrying one another? I'm just pointing out the fundamentalists fundamental hypocrisy about GLBT.

Half our heterosexual population has divorced and remarried---the larger percentage without the reason of adultery. Is that not more prevalent than five percent of the population being homosexual? Yet look at these threads!!! There aren't any threads bemoaning divorcees living in adultery and wondering why those people are allowed in church!

And the hypocrisy, imo, is a far, far greater sin than either homosexuality or divorce remarriage for reasons other than adultery. And a whole lot of the hypocrisy is coming from divorced people who believe, oops, I made a mistake but God forgave me and now it's all okay. But Jesus said remarriage of a divorced person is committing adultery--so it is committing it continuously.

Jesus also spent a whole lot of time telling Pharisees how they didn't really understand the Bible. Some of the very concepts they accepted as "taught" by the Torah, He rejected, and told them there was a different way. He spent more time with sinful people than He did with the synagogue attenders of His day. He spoke of forgiveness and acceptance. In virtually every single situation His pointing out of the "goats" in the crowd were the "religious" folks of His time. Would to God we would have a man of God that would do that today.

Sorry, StainedGlassWarrior, it's your message that is stained---with that hypocrisy. And it's whole purpose is to point a finger at someone else's sin, not your own. And if that's no so, start your own thread on why your sins qualify you to go to hell every bit as much as the sexual activity of a homosexual. Because they do. And if you believe God can forgive you--even though you continue to sin--then why don't you believe God can forgive them, too?

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Did you read why I started this thread? Have I judged anyone? I have said the behavior is not normal. The behavior is not according to God's design. It's a health risk - 20 years less of a lifespan for homosexuals. I have said the public acceptance of sin (along with all of the other sin) puts our country in the crosshairs of God's judgment.

I have said unbelievers are not expected to follow God's Word on this.

Tell me where I have judged anyone?

Your purpose in this thread is self justification. You want to continue living in your sins and avoid facing them by pointing out what you perceive are the sins of others.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps all most all of it on Okinawa and in Viet Nam. There were probably 75% of the young men engaging in sexual activity with girls over there. Some were married. I even had one tell me that, "I left my marriage license on the shore of California and I'll pick it up when I go back." A good, church going guy, too! We had numerous STDs in our units. One was so bad that they wouldn't let him go back to the States until it was cleared up. When I headed back four months later, he was still on Okinawa and his time in the Corps had been extended because they hadn't figured out what strain of syphilis he had.

So what kind of sexual activity percentage wise do you think happens more frequently--homosexuality which exists in five percent of our population, or adultery and unprotected sex with unknown or little known heterosexual partners? You don't even have to be a math genius to figure that out.

What puts this country in the cross hairs of God's judgment is our inability to forgive, accept, and love one another. Because we are doing a hell of job judging others.

The old time preaching in this country was always to the people in the church--telling them how they needed to get closer to God, how they needed to root sin out of their own life, and how they needed to witness to others about what miracles God can perform in a heart. Nowadays, people go to church to hear how bad other people are, how good they, themselves are, and why they should vote for people who are going to put the ten commandments back in schools (supposedly because THAT will suddenly make us moral again).

And don't tell me I haven't a clue about what is going on in churches. I'm licensed to preach--but haven't done it in a score of years now--mostly because church people don't want to hear about getting their own life straightened out before they even think about straightening anyone else out.

There will be no revival in this country because the people in churches think they don't need a revival--all those other folks outside of church need it--so they intend to fill everyone's ears with crap instead of doing what they need to do---get down on their knees and pray earnestly for God to forgive them and help them find a way to LOVE THEIR "ENEMIES," instead of preaching AT them, not to and with them.

Church folks don't see the Spirit of God at work because they aren't living in the Spirit of God.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

1. You have no proof that the Bible is a book of myths.

Nor do we require any. It is up to YOU to substantiate the truth of it, not up to us to substantiate otherwise. And you have failed even to make the attempt thus far, let alone achieve this.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

2. The principles in the Bible are amazingly relevant to even our highly advanced technological society. For example, Dave Ramsey has saved countless people from financial ruins by teaching them the principles of the Bible regarding money and debt.

Even if that was true, and I see no reason to believe it is, this would not for one IOTA validate the truth of the claims of the events in the bible. At all. Even a little bit. And you know it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I could say Kleptomania is in the DNA. It is part of their being. Does that mean society should excuse their behavior and let them steal?

With your logic, Kleptomania can not be a sin.

Thats not the users logic at all, but it is good to see that I am not the only poster you willfully distort.

The user was not saying anything about sin per se, the user was countering the claim that god does not put that sin into people. IF however any trait is genetic, and you claim your god created these individuals and their genetics, then the claim god does not put those traits into the person is simply erroneous.

Thankfully this is your problem not mine, because I am not the one claiming (and failing at every attempt to substantiate) that this god exists, let alone that it has ANY input into DNA.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

"Positive" vs "negative" is merely a matter of personal opinion or perspective. I am willing to bet that the Christian wedding cake baker who lost their business certainly thinks homosexuality had a negative influence.

That has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with business. The baker injected his personal opinions into his business and people merely voted with their feet and took their business elsewhere.

And this is a good thing. I am all FOR letting private business discriminate against whomever they want. If they want to refuse to serve homosexuals..... refuse to serve pork..... refuse to serve women who are not wearing cloth bags..... charge women more than men for the same products.... or any other expression of bigotry..... then I am ALL FOR allowing them to do it. I am AGAINST the people who want to sue them for it or force them to change their business.

But I will not hide my mirth if the result of this is that people simply take their business elsewhere and the business owner ends up broke and homeless.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

A homosexual lifestyle is willful constant resistance to repenting and turning away from the sin.

All I am hearing from your unsubstantiated opinion about gods opinion is "I have failed utterly to establish an argument against homosexuality..... but I really am against it anyway..... so I will invent a "god" and invent "sin" and merely assert that homosexuality is against this".

In other words you are so anti homosexual than in the absence of any arguments against it.... you simply manufacture some. Which says NOTHING about homosexuality but a LOT about you as a person.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Are you going to tell me spreading STDS is not harmful for society?

Since ALL sex (as noted in the link you just provided) holds the risk of STD then you are now arguing against sex as a whole, but simply pretending you are making an argument against homosexuality specifically.

In fact given female homosexuality holds LESS risk of STD than heterosexual or homosexual sex, your argument is actually FOR female homosexuality rather than against male homosexuality. So you are actually now simply arguing against yourself.

But what you are actually doing therefore is worse. You are making the conclusion first, then cherry picking the data set to validate it retrospectively. You are not looking at the data set and concluding female homosexuality is therefore the most moral at all..... but you are starting off with the conclusion first and cherry picking the data set to fit it second.

Again this simply says nothing about homosexuality, but much about you and your approach to the topic.

Worse however is that your link merely asserts the greater risks but does not show what figures this is based on, how those figures were compiled, or how they fit the conclusions being drawn from it. Do you have ACTUAL evidence of these greater risks, or just opinion pieces that interpret the data second and third hand for you? Show me an ACTUAL study and demonstrate that you are proficient in interpreting it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The studies show that monogamy and homosexuality are oxymorons.

By all means substantiate this claim with said studies for us as all too often you hand wave to "the studies" and never actually cite one of them. You appear to think that merely mentioning that there may be a study is proof enough without anyone having to check if the study exists, let alone says what you claim it does.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Got proof that most homosexuals are monogamous? If not, then your question is irrelevant in the context of the real world.

Our species as a whole tends towards monogamy, so as such the onus is on you to show they are not monogamous, not on us to show they are. Where are your "studies" showing the relative monogamy between different sexual configurations? Lets look at them, see how they were compiled, and check the interpretation of their methodology and conclusions. I am trained very heavily in doing just that, so I can explain to you the content of any study you present.

I can tell you I myself have looked for such studies and the ONLY one I found was horrifically biased. What they did was they surveyed the _general population_ for figures on heterosexuality. But they specifically and ONLY surveyed gay cruising sex bars for figures on homosexuality.

In other words they cherry picked their data set...... and no surprise it was a christian funded study.... to ensure the figures came out the way they wanted them to.

So I am AGOG now to see what studies YOU think you have.... and how the studies were conducted and interpreted. Regale us with the figures you claim you know about but have thus far been denied to me. I am all ears. And eyes. I am at the ready with the full wealth of my scientific and epidemiological training.

Go for it!

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I am going to try and hit all of these.

If you call dismissing whole swaths of my post by simply quoting it and replying "OK" a "hit" then so be it. I call it a dodge. The same for simply saying "It should be enough that god abhors it".

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

The top priority is that God abhors homosexual activity.

Says you. But you have neither evidenced this claim, nor have you even shown there IS a god in the first place. You appear to be making both up entirely. Perhaps it is YOUR top priority and you simply imagine your god agrees with you because.... well you simply want it to be so.

As I pointed out in an earlier post which you merely skipped over and ignored, there are vast swaths of Christians who have no issue between their homosexuality, or that of others, and their god and their scripture. There is a significant Catholic subset with a name and a website that are perfectly ok with it. And Andrew Sullivan a devout catholic blogs often about how he sees no issue between his sexuality and his god.

So where YOU are getting it from is anyones guess. Including, I suspect, your own.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Doesn't mean Christ is pleased with what they are doing. You want to ignore what God has said - that's on you.

It does not mean your Christ is displeased with what they are doing either. Or that this Christ even exists. Or this god. All of this you are simply making up. All I am seeing from you is an anti homosexual bias which you are simply rubber stamping by inventing gods and interpretations of those gods that appear.... to you at least..... to validate them. For example.....

But as I said, all you are doing is interpreting a text written in bronze aged ignorance to be against it. Nothing about this suggests there is a god, that this god agrees with this text, or that we should consider this text in any way relevant to anything.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Nobody is dodging you.

Except where you have done, by skipping over entire posts, or by dodging whole parts of my post by simply writing "OK" and leaving it alone.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Again - #1 the Creator has stated the sin of homosexuality.

Repetition of assertion does not evidence make. You have not shown there is a creator, let alone that it has stated anything at all.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

It's unnatural and degrading.

That is your opinion. Not fact.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Nobody said anything about using a screwdriver as a paperweight as sin or error, so feel free.

Nor did I claim anyone said this. You would do well to look up the word "analogy", learn what it means, and understand that that was what I was engaged in here. To repeat the point without an analogy, since you appear to have some difficulty with analogy:

Your point appears to be that some people are failing to use sex for its primary function and hence there is something immoral about this. My counter point, which you have dodged by pretending my analogy was more than it was, is that there is nothing immoral about using ANYTHING for functions other than the primary one.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Stop whining.

Pointing out facts is not whining.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

God, thru the Bible, lays out the case against homosexuality.

You have not evidenced this at all. The opinions in the bible are those of the people who wrote the bible until such time as you can evidence the existence of your god, or that it had anything to do with the text.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Whatever... I don't think animals should be used to justify human behavior.

They aren't. They are used to negate the spurious "not natural" argument made against homosexuality. The animals are not being used to justify the behavior in humans, but simply to negate the nonsense argument the anti-homosexual like yourself makes about it being unnatural.

To me the "natural/unnatural" argument is a non argument from the outset because we should not be mediating morality based on what is natural. Much of what we as humans do is unnatural. Lighting our house at night with electricity..... using currency to obtain goods and services.... cooking food..... preventing disease with vaccinations.... and much much more. "Natural" is a nonsense basis for discussing morality.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

There's enough evidence in the design of how the universe works that there is indeed a Designer over all of creation.

Says you. But note how you assert the existence of this evidence but then dodge presenting a shred of it. That is quite telling. And it is exceedingly common rhetoric from the theistic cohort. They talk and talk endlessly about how much evidence there is, but dodge and dodge endlessly offering a shred of it.

At which point I simply am left with only one conclusion available to me: They are all talk.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

God hates sin.

Again: Says you. Again: You appear to be simply making it up.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I believe I mentioned other sins that you neglected to quote.

I neglect nothing. I am however aware of the penalties the Moderators of this forum levy when users go off topic. Therefore I am sticking to the topic of homosexuality thank you.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I have spelled out why a few times already.

And have been totally rebutted. If You do not want to invest time in defending your assertions, then why bother post at all? Just to soap box?

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I hate answering long posts like this. Takes too long. So if you respond with a long post, I will purposely ignore - or maybe comment on one or two points only.

Nice attempt to make me curtail my response to you. I will respond as I like. No one is compelling you to respond in turn except you yourself. This from you simply sounds like not only are you dodging much of what I already wrote.... but are pre-declaring your excuse for dodging what I write in the future.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

No one wants to read super long posts that you have to scroll down at least 3 times.

Speak for yourself. You speak for no one else. And your "No one" is simply falsified by the existence of even ONE person who has no issue with it. And I am one such person. I prefer long posts where a person explains and defends their position, rather than short posts where the person is really just dodging or copping out.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

What am I missing?

You are missing a case. You have offered none.

And what you are most missing is the main force of my reply to you so far. You simply have ignored this one part more than any other. Which is that there is no onus on us to validate homosexual behavior. The onus is on you to create a case against it. Until you do this, and you have failed utterly so far, then we merely have to cite "innocent until proven guilty" at you and we are done.

We can of course consider any case you offer AGAINST homosexuality and see if it holds water. If it does then we will change our position and be anti homosexuality too. Otherwise we will not. But there is NO ONUS at all on us to prove the innocence of something for which you have established no guilt.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I would question the healthy relationship aspect. The relationship also does not promote procreation.

Your second sentence is a COMPLETE non sequitur to your first. Procreation is not a synonym for a healthy relationship. Many people do both. Many people do one or the other. Many people do neither.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I mean if everyone did it, we would be extinct.

That is an argument from absurdity fallacy you are trying here. Homosexuality is a minority behavior. It is therefore biologically and evolutionary insignificant. No one is suggesting, at all, that "everyone" do it. Not even remotely close.

Further not only are you engaging in absurdity, you are engaging in falsehood too. If everyone turned homosexual tomorrow that would not mean the extinction of our species. Because many.... if not most.... if not all.... homosexuals still have the urge for procreation and parenthood. And they achieve this TODAY through methods like artificial insemination (the scientific method) or merely natural insemination by surrogacy (non scientific "natural" method). So an entirely homosexual culture such as you envision for the purposes of caricature and absurdity simply would not have the result you assert based on nothing but hot air.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

You OK with sending people to the grave early? Or is it their business?

You have not cited figures that actually support this at all. But even if you did, then the answer is yes. We do allow people to make their own choices. We simply ensure they have the full information set when making those choices. If you choose to smoke, drink, or eat too much fast food then this is indeed your decision. Not mine.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

These actions are not in accordance to how we are designed

For the 20thish time I have to point out you have failed to do anything but ASSERT we were designed at all.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

The information is all over the internet from both sides of the issue.

Then present some. For once.

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Murder is not accepted, stealing, pedophilia, greed to the harm of others... we are not trying to make these sins acceptable in society. Homosexuality, well yeah we are.

And for good reason. We can construct valid, rational, substantiated, useful arguments against pedophilia and murder. You and your anti homosexual cohort however have failed entirely to do this with homosexuality.

We simply do not map your imaginary "sin" set onto society. We consider each "sin" in turn and see if there is reason to be against it in society. You simply wish to build a false equivalent between murder and homosexuality, using the blanket term "sin", to smuggle in your personal opinion alongside things we actually do agree on.

Morality seems to be the things we have good reason to be for and against. Sin seems to be simply what you are personally against but can not validate your opinion on in any way whatsoever.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

That's fine. Let me know when you come out of the biblical cafeteria.

That is a complete hoot. You cook up the way you want your RULES to apply, whether they are in agreement with the primary principle Christ taught or not, and accuse ME of "cafeteria Christianity."

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Then why would you accept a "Christian" baker making a cake for two divorced people marrying one another? I'm just pointing out the fundamentalists fundamental hypocrisy about GLBT.

That's like saying the baker is hypocritical if he services any person who ever commited ANY sin past or present. Even ignoring the fact that the Bible totally excuses divorce in cases of adultery and sexual immorality, the key difference is the couple are not actively engaging in a sinful lifestyle unlike homosexuals. The divorce sin is in the past and can be forgiven.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

That's like saying the baker is hypocritical if he services any person who ever commited ANY sin past or present. Even ignoring the fact that the Bible totally excuses divorce in cases of adultery and sexual immorality, the key difference is the couple are not actively engaging in a sinful lifestyle unlike homosexuals. The divorce sin is in the past and can be forgiven.

In cases of divorce without "scriptural excuses" the "sin" is in getting remarried according to the "rules of the game of biblical rule mining" that is played when denying the service to gays. It won't fly when such "reason" is applied, it's known as hypocrisy.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Nor do we require any. It is up to YOU to substantiate the truth of it, not up to us to substantiate otherwise. And you have failed even to make the attempt thus far, let alone achieve this.

Then you are committing the logical fallacy known as argument for ignorance. In other words, because I have not present evidence to match your narrow band goalposts for accepted evidence then you think that gives you the right to boldly claim as FACT that the Bible is nothing more than a book of myths. Since you use the term "we" then I can assume your position is with cupper who made the claim.


The reality is there is plenty of evidence that God is real, but atheists have fabricated a construct that can easily dispute anything brought to the table. Even if I back it up with hardcore documention, atheists will just fall back on that causation doesn't mean correlation nonsense.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Your purpose in this thread is self justification. You want to continue living in your sins and avoid facing them by pointing out what you perceive are the sins of others.

Wow. I want to continue living in my sins.

I have not had too much direct interaction with you - but I can see why some have doubts on which side of the fence you reside... this is right out of the handbook of the accuser of the brethren.

Someone lumped you in with unbelievers earlier this week and I made a point to exclude you from that group... recalculating...

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

I spent four years in the Marine Corps all most all of it on Okinawa and in Viet Nam. There were probably 75% of the young men engaging in sexual activity with girls over there. Some were married. I even had one tell me that, "I left my marriage license on the shore of California and I'll pick it up when I go back." A good, church going guy, too! We had numerous STDs in our units. One was so bad that they wouldn't let him go back to the States until it was cleared up. When I headed back four months later, he was still on Okinawa and his time in the Corps had been extended because they hadn't figured out what strain of syphilis he had.

So what kind of sexual activity percentage wise do you think happens more frequently--homosexuality which exists in five percent of our population, or adultery and unprotected sex with unknown or little known heterosexual partners? You don't even have to be a math genius to figure that out.

I don't neglect hetero adultery. I have said so in this thread on numerous occasions.

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

What puts this country in the cross hairs of God's judgment is our inability to forgive, accept, and love one another. Because we are doing a hell of job judging others.

The old time preaching in this country was always to the people in the church--telling them how they needed to get closer to God, how they needed to root sin out of their own life, and how they needed to witness to others about what miracles God can perform in a heart. Nowadays, people go to church to hear how bad other people are, how good they, themselves are, and why they should vote for people who are going to put the ten commandments back in schools (supposedly because THAT will suddenly make us moral again).

Re-read the OT and take note of why Sodom was judged... why the wanderers in the desert were judged... why the nation of Israel was judged... it's sin - not a lack of forgiveness, or a lack of love.

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

And don't tell me I haven't a clue about what is going on in churches. I'm licensed to preach--but haven't done it in a score of years now--mostly because church people don't want to hear about getting their own life straightened out before they even think about straightening anyone else out.

There will be no revival in this country because the people in churches think they don't need a revival--all those other folks outside of church need it--so they intend to fill everyone's ears with crap instead of doing what they need to do---get down on their knees and pray earnestly for God to forgive them and help them find a way to LOVE THEIR "ENEMIES," instead of preaching AT them, not to and with them.

Church folks don't see the Spirit of God at work because they aren't living in the Spirit of God.

Sounds like you have heard that before. God does speak through other believers at times. Maybe God is trying to tell you something and your spiritual ears are off.

Who cares that you were a preacher? Looking at the red above - maybe God removed you from preaching for a reason. It's not your job to straighten people out... that God's job... that's Christ's job. Interesting... God has something for you if turn back to Him.

[SAAN]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Meh.... big deal. It's only the bible. Not really relevant to society, only those that believe what it writes, often interpreting it to their own preconceived prejudices.

On judgement day, many will see he outcome of all those who ignored the word of God for traditions of man.