Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That some actually believe a deity is spying on ALL of us in our bedrooms at all times and wagging an annoying finger at those of us who might be participating in 'incorrect' intimacy is beyond creepy. How did such a belief come about?
That some actually believe a deity is spying on ALL of us in our bedrooms at all times and wagging an annoying finger at those of us who might be participating in 'incorrect' intimacy is beyond creepy. How did such a belief come about?
Sincere question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
God is our creator. He designed us.
Well, that was a response but hardly an answer to the question.
Here are some others.
As long as God designed us as He did ...what is the actual purpose of heterosexual sex?
If sex is merely for procreation then, okay ...even though millions of heterosexual couples don't have sex for procreation but for recreation. MANY even use birth control methods to prevent procreation. How does God feel about that?
If sex is a heterosexual expression of 'love' then, okay ...even though millions of heterosexual couples have sex where no love is involved. How does God feel about that?
If sex is for heterosexual pleasure then, okay ...THAT appears to be the ONLY reason millions of heterosexual couples have sex. No procreation. No love required. Just for pleasure. How does God feel about that?
So, if millions of heterosexual couples have sex for no other reason than deriving pleasure from the act ...why then does it really matter (to God) WHO the adult recipients of sexual pleasure - gay or straight - are?
Moreover (I might as well get this one out of the way) ...if anal and/or oral sex 'annoys' God to the point that it's 'abominable' to Him, then how would God deal with the millions of heterosexual couples - probably including (gasp) Christians - who participate in this form of sex? Isn't this in violation of 'the way that God designed us'?
Just one more. While the above 'abominations' evidently DO take place among heterosexual relationships and, let's face it, everyone must know this, then how come this form of sexual practice between heterosexual couples is NEVER addressed and condemned from the pulpit? Would it be too intrusive and embarrassing? But yet, isn't this the same 'abomination' that is imagined but never verified taking place between male gay couples and THE reason behind the scriptures of condemnation that are persistently thrown at them?
If I'm annoying, just tell me.
Last edited by RomulusXXV; 03-08-2016 at 08:38 PM..
I don't think there is any real indication of what God thinks on the issue. From my standpoint it would fall under what Paul said about nothing being unlawful to him but some things being harmful. If it is not harmful (at least compared to other such relations) and it is in the context of a relationship, I'd say that God would be happy about it. Sex is about FAR more than reproduction in humans.
What about when Jesus talked about marriage in Matthew 19? Why would He have not mentioned gay relationships?
1 Corinthians 6:9-12 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And you really don't believe your own message of about "original sin,"
Yes - I do. That's why I mentioned it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Deuteronomy 5:9b says "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." Yet Deuteronomy 24:16 states clearly "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." Both perspectives in the same book showing that one simply must have a measuring stick for determining the applicablity of every verse of Scripture. Mine is Jesus Christ--and visiting sins of the father on the sons simply doesn't fit in with the picture of Jesus in the gospels. Yours tends to be whatever verse supports your dogma.
The verses you like, you will quote. The verses you don't like, you ignore or call it heresy. Typical cafeteria theology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
If you ever reach the point when everything--including yourself--is measured against Jesus, you will find yourself a much more loving and forgiving and accepting individual. But I suspect your own internal fears and your desire to "fit in" with those like minded folks in your church will prevent you from breaking the spiritual chains you have placed upon yourself.
I can only pray that I am wrong.
What you don't seem to understand is that the reason Jesus came and died is love for sinners with the goal of eternal life. He did not die for people to continue practicing sin. He died to make eternal life accessible for all who sin, and to sanctify those whom He calls to Himself. That's the goal.
Thanks for the amateur psychiatry prognosis, but I am fine. You don't know what I do. You don't know who I deal with.
What about when Jesus talked about marriage in Matthew 19? Why would He have not mentioned gay relationships?
Jesus was answering a question that addressed at least 97% of the population, why would He bring up anything that did not have to do with the question? Note that He was talking about a committed relationship, not anything to do with procreation either, and that was not part of the question.
Why focus on what Jesus did NOT say when what He said about relationships and community pretty much covers it? (Well, except for those questions raised by those who have issues with some kinds of relationships)
Jesus was answering a question that addressed at least 97% of the population, why would He bring up anything that did not have to do with the question? Note that He was talking about a committed relationship, not anything to do with procreation either, and that was not part of the question.
Why focus on what Jesus did NOT say when what He said about relationships and community pretty much covers it? (Well, except for those questions raised by those who have issues with some kinds of relationships)
It appears to me Jesus was defining marriage, plain and simple.
1 Corinthians 6:9-12 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
I stated that fact to get someone to step into a pile of doo--unfortunately you fill the bill. That word was NEVER used in the Bible--NEVER. Faulty, biased translators of "modern" editions picked up on the bigotry of a majority of the bible buying public.
To enlighten you--in all of history, the first time the word "homosexuality" used in English was:
Quote:
The first known use of homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg Affair.
But prejudiced people are able to backtrack their terminology into the past as easily as they project 2000+ year old writings as applicable in the 21st century. That's the nature of prejudice. It wants to believe it isn't prejudice at all.
So your prejudice is preserved with your dollars. No one even understood homosexual until psychologists coined the phrase. In fact, men having sex with men was believed in ancient times to be by those who were so consumed by sexual passion that women were not enough for them.
Quote:
The ancient Romans also had a very different understanding of homosexuality than we do in modern society. There was no real concept of homosexuality or of heterosexuality.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_.../Homosexuality
Frankly, male/male sexual relations at the very least bordered on pedophilia--as only the older male partner (the penetrator) was supposed to receive pleasure. Sex itself had no emotional attachment and was completely unlike how Americans in the 21st century view sexual relations.
The views concerning same sex relationships have varied over the centuries.
Quote:
In a 1976 study, Gwen Broude and Sarah Greene compared attitudes towards and frequency of homosexuality in the ethnographic studies available in the Standard cross-cultural sample. They found that out of 42 communities: homosexuality was accepted or ignored in 9; 5 communities had no concept of homosexuality; 11 considered it undesirable but did not set punishments; and 17 strongly disapproved and punished. Of 70 communities, homosexuality was reported to be absent or rare in frequency in 41, and present or not uncommon in 29
So even in modern communities, let alone in ancient, less populated ones, some have no concept whatsoever of homosexuality.
Just so you can feel good about your prejudice, please note that most gay people react to the word "homosexual" in the same way your parents heard the word "colored." While not a slur as f*gg*t or the "n" word, it is perceived by gays in a clinical, medical terminology manner that leaves them feeling as less than human.
So your ilk accomplished its goal of including the clinical term in most modern bibles when it was never understood in that fashion in ancient history. You are much like my grandfather who would have been happy if the Biblical text about Ham and his descendants had mentioned they were "colored." Most likely you would be incensed.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-08-2016 at 11:15 PM..
It appears to me Jesus was defining marriage, plain and simple.
It appears to me that He was defining divorce, plain and simple.
On the other hand, if you wish to define "marriage" as a religious institution, I have no objection. When you try to impose that definition on a society that views it as a civil institution, I do.
Last edited by nateswift; 03-09-2016 at 12:19 AM..
Reason: clarification
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
