Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class

[7StringedBeast]

One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6.  He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed."  It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them. 
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife.  If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.

Right, but you can act out your sexual desires on your wife.  But just because someone is gay they can't act out their sexual desires?  After god made them that way in the first place?  That just doesn't make sense and isn't right.  It's contradictory to itself.

[yeshaberto]

I can only add that this scenario would indeed be difficult. 

[jammindude]

I can only repeat that God did not create ANY OF US the way we are. Religion may teach that...the Bible does not.

[SeRoX]

@Vivace

Yes, science had found a gene connected to homosexuality but it doesn't mean it's mutation or something like that. Illness is defined like that: it must be harm your body physically and psychologically. Some scientist can say it's illness with their articles, I've read them too but they always end up being wrong. Even WHO says it's not illness, plus what we learn from genetic school it's not illness, even a little. So there is nothing to be cured. But there is really something that has to be cured: homophobia. To hate people, just because they are different from them, is a illness, a big one.  We have to understand one point. Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You all can see the proof from the nature. If people are not considered as a proof on that matter because of using their brain, you can still see some of other animals are homosexuals, not choosing it, it's their instinct.

[jammindude]

I agree with SeRoX....It''s NOT an illness. 

But it is an imperfection.   All here who are perfect, raise your hands.   


Didn't think so.       


I also don't think alcoholism is an illness.   It's a condition.  It's an imperfection.   

Someone else might have a heart condition that is not an illness nor is it in any way terminal.  They can go on to lead perfectly normal lives provided they maintain a certain strict diet.   It's an imperfection.   And it's an imperfection that effects the way they live the rest of their life.   If they want to live, they must conform to certain restrictions that maybe don't effect other people.     But God didn't MAKE the person have a heart condition.   God will someday heal *ALL* people of their imperfections. 

[the Catfishman]

Eh, I wouldn't call it an imperfection or illness (lolwut)..  I would compare it with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin colour.

[Adami]

I would compare it with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin colour.

Oddly enough, Hitler viewed it the same way.

[Ben_Jamin]

The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?

[Adami]

The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?

Lots of people can't procreate.


That said, I have no idea what the two halves of your post have to do with each other.

[SeRoX]

You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?

I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.

[Ben_Jamin]

The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?

Lots of people can't procreate.


That said, I have no idea what the two halves of your post have to do with each other.

They don't have anything to do with each other, I seem to have a hard time conveying what I'm trying to say.

With the procreation thing, I'm meaning unless they really want to have their own DNA they can't naturally do it. Yes, others can't as well, but to them its not a choice. With Homo's that is a choice. Naturally

Now, Does the upbringing have something to do with being that way? What about gender confusion?

I do agree though that homophobia needs to be cured. I find it funny how people are that scared/fear homosexuals, makes no sense because people want aliens to swoop by yet we can't even accept our own differences. 

[kirksnosehair]

I also don't think alcoholism is an illness.   It's a condition.  It's an imperfection.   

What you "think" is irrelevant to what the facts are.  You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The American Medical Association definition of alcoholism:

Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as "a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations."

Apologies for the slight thread derail, I just didn't want that kind of misinformation to be presented without pointing out how fundamentally wrong it is.

[Ben_Jamin]

You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?

I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.

Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.

I get what your saying in your last paragraph, I'm Bi and knew it since I was like 8. I didn't come out till like a year or two ago, nothings changed. Which makes me believe nothing is wrong with it, whats wrong are the others who don't understand what it feels like to be this way. For this I am glad I am Bi, because I understand how ignorant people are about this and other things in general, how people don't really know anything at all.

[jammindude]

I also don't think alcoholism is an illness.   It's a condition.  It's an imperfection.   

What you "think" is irrelevant to what the facts are.  You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The American Medical Association definition of alcoholism:

Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as "a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations."

Apologies for the slight thread derail, I just didn't want that kind of misinformation to be presented without pointing out how fundamentally wrong it is.

Fair enough...I retract.   

But I will add this message from Bill W. himself....

"We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead there are many separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it an illness, or a malady—a far safer term for us to use."

Still...you're right...it doesn't quite fit.

I live with relatives who suffer from bi-polar disorder...which I know is termed a "condition" and not a "disease".

I guess I was using "alcoholism" because of the way the clinical psychiatrist referred to bipolar.   She said of bipolar that it wasn't a disease or an illness because can never be terminal, and doesn't lead to death in any way.   Instead, she (a graduate PhD of Wazzu) referred to it as a "condition"...which is something that a person can learn to live a completely normal life while still suffering from the "condition".    Based on that...the parallel to alcoholism *seemed* to fit.   But it's obvious my conclusions were premature.   I apologize. 

[SeRoX]

You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?

I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.

Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.

Yeah I get what are saying but it's totally upbringing style. Some children can be effected and some not. And I also see the parents you explain and their children. That's why we have effeminate boys and manly girls around us. The effeminate boys can be %100 straight, which I've already seen with my own eyes, one of my friend. But that could be against men and women inner nature. Read some articles about that and many of them define this psychological problem. I kind of agree, not everyone but probably many of them hate their bodies as being a man or woman. But I also have not any problem with their living. If they are happy, I'm happy.

[Ben_Jamin]

You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?

I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.

Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.

Yeah I get what are saying but it's totally upbringing style. Some children can be effected and some not. And I also see the parents you explain and their children. That's why we have effeminate boys and manly girls around us. The effeminate boys can be %100 straight, which I've already seen with my own eyes, one of my friend. But that could be against men and women inner nature. Read some articles about that and many of them define this psychological problem. I kind of agree, not everyone but probably many of them hate their bodies as being a man or woman. But I also have not any problem with their living. If they are happy, I'm happy.

True. Seems that we won't know anytime soon, so all we can do as humans is accept them and move on since they've been on this Earth for quite some time. Some Native tribes call them Two-spirits and are treated righteously as equals, even greater.

Also, could it be the devil has twisted the facts to say god said homosexuality is wrong?

[SeRoX]

From my view, I do not believe things like that. We write here explanation supported by science, at least what we know about this mater. The devil, God things are very personal and related personal beliefs. Some who are deist or atheist do not see this matter that way whereas believers do. So I can't say anything about your question as a deist.

[SystematicThought]

I appreciate all the feedback guys. It's another 'Happy Circle Friday' in Script class today. We'll see if the topic is brought up again

[skydivingninja]

One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6.  He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed."  It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them. 
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife.  If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.

I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago.  One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance.  He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality. 

[bosk1]

One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6.  He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed."  It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them. 
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife.  If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.

I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago.  One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance.  He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality. 

Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, that argument is not really very sound.  While one could perhaps make that argument taking I Cor 6 in complete isolation, passages like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are pretty clear about the specific acts that are at issue.  There really isn't much room for interpretation about what those passages mean. 

The statement that "in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality" is also a bit misleading.  The actions (i.e. homosexual sex) were most certainly discussed.  What was not discussed is homosexuality as a "lifestyle", as it often is these days.  So, yes, it was discussed.  It was simply discussed differently.

[skydivingninja]

One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6.  He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed."  It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them. 
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife.  If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.

I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago.  One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance.  He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality. 

Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, that argument is not really very sound.  While one could perhaps make that argument taking I Cor 6 in complete isolation, passages like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are pretty clear about the specific acts that are at issue.  There really isn't much room for interpretation about what those passages mean. 

The statement that "in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality" is also a bit misleading.  The actions (i.e. homosexual sex) were most certainly discussed.  What was not discussed is homosexuality as a "lifestyle", as it often is these days.  So, yes, it was discussed.  It was simply discussed differently.

He said the same about the Romans passage as well, and I probably just paraphrased that last bit incorrectly.  But if a guy who studies the bible and other religious texts, and all the issues surrounding that for a living says that there are probably translation and historical context issues, I'm likely to believe him. 

And weren't Leviticus and all the old laws thrown out with Jesus anyway?  Why does that matter? 

[bosk1]

And weren't Leviticus and all the old laws thrown out with Jesus anyway?  Why does that matter? 

No need for the " " smiley, because you make a perfectly legitimate point.  You are absolutely correct.  Christians should not take a position that something is wrong merely because there is an OT law against it, as that law was for the Jews and the Jews only.  But where after Jesus, certain laws are repeated, we can draw upon their OT counterparts for context.  To draw upon a crude analogy in law, the U.S. legal system is derived from the British common law system.  Early in this nation's history, it was quite common to draw upon English cases for precedent.  Sometimes, those cases were disregarded on the grounds that they are not binding upon the U.S. since we have our own legal system.  But some of those cases were indeed followed, not because they were binding upon us in the U.S., but because we had enacted similar laws and were drawing upon precedential analysis of those laws that seemed applicable.  Make sense?

[yeshaberto]

I love that analogy, bosk, never thought of it from that angle 

[snapple]

Plus, Paul (I think it was Paul who wrote all the stuff about homosexuality in the NT) had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.

[bosk1]

Plus, Paul ... had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.

  No he didn't.

[snapple]

I knew I'd be mistaken. As a Christian, I can honestly say that reading my Bible is my absolute weakest point.

[bosk1]

Well, it was Paul who had the most to say about it in the NT, but there is nothing to indicate he (or any other Bible writer) had a "vendetta against homosexuals."  That view isn't really supported by what he wrote.

On a different but somewhat-related topic, I was taking my kids on a cub scout field trip yesterday, and we drove past a busy intersection that usually has those guys that dance around and twirl sings hawking something or other.  You know the ones, right?  Well, those guys weren't there.  But there was a guy looking very angry and holding a large sign that said "God hates fags."  I could only shake my head.  Made me sad that someone could be so misguided in their faith and have nothing better to do that be blatantly insulting. 

[hefdaddy42]

Plus, Paul ... had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.

  No he didn't.

I honestly think Paul's only "issue" with it was that Jews were against it, and he was a Jew.

*pure speculation on my part, yes I know*

[Omega]

I think it's fairly clear that Paul condemned all sorts of sexual misconduct, especially homosexuality.

[bosk1]

I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all.  He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.

[Omega]

I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all.  He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.

I suppose so, but it could simply be that at the time that Paul wrote, homosexuality was explicitly recognized as a blatant example sexual misconduct and perhaps he saw no need to elaborate on subject that was, in his mind, fairly uniformly condemned by the majority of monotheistic peoples.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

I think it's fairly clear that Paul condemned all sorts of sexual misconduct, especially homosexuality.

Paul "especially" spoke out against all kinds of sin.  Paul speaks explicitly to homosexuality in the beginning of the letter to the Romans, but beyond that it appears in lists.  Among the things Paul gets very riled up about are hypocrisies and meaningless divisions.  See, his interactions with Peter recorded in the letter to the Galatians and his letters to the Corinthian church.

[Fiery Winds]

I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all.  He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.

I suppose so, but it could simply be that at the time that Paul wrote, homosexuality was explicitly recognized as a blatant example sexual misconduct and perhaps he saw no need to elaborate on subject that was, in his mind, fairly uniformly condemned by the majority of monotheistic peoples.

Keep in mind that in Corinth (who Paul was addressing in 1st Corinthians) there were many temples where priestesses engaged in prostitution with its members.  For new converts to Christianity it could be difficult to leave that behind, hence why Paul addressed sexual immorality as a whole.

[Omega]

I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their “loving commitment” criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out “marriages” between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call “marriage.” For someone could always argue that even the “loving commitment” criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of “same-sex marriage” also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of “marriage.” Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Let me know what you think.

[jammindude]