Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[BarneyFife]

God's Word is Good News... ALL of it, not just bits and pieces !

View attachment 37552

This idea gets an awful lot of lip service. I hope you'll pardon me if, after seeing so many of your posts, I strongly suspect that there are more than a few paradoxes in the Bible that you're not willing to reconcile.

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I strongly suspect that there are more than a few paradoxes in the Bible that you're not willing to reconcile.

Those that see things from the Lord's point of view... from abiding IN CHRIST, based on what God says.... see things differently than those with a carnal mindset.

 

[BarneyFife]

Those that see things from the Lord's point of view... from abiding IN CHRIST, based on what God says.... see things differently than those with a carnal mindset.

"Us and them"—I rest my case.

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

"Us and them"—I rest my case.

Well, you obviously missed this scripture which differentiates between spiritually minded and carnal minded... you must be on the carnal minded side

1 Corinthians 2:9-16
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This is all based on what God has already said in His Word of course...

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

 

[BarneyFife]

Well, you obviously missed this scripture which differentiates between spiritually minded and carnal minded... you must be on the carnal minded side View attachment 37553

1 Corinthians 2:9-16
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This is all based on what God has already said in His Word of course...

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

It's only obvious and funny to you, big boy.

.

 

[TinMan]

Being, as I am, a character-building work-in-progress, I wouldn't deny that an idea like neuroplasticity sounds like very good news to me, since it would only serve to further ensure me that my flaws (as well as those of others) needn't go unimproved or even be considered irreversible altogether.

If the prospect of such a thing is objectionable to you, degeneracy is another option, although I can't recommend it.

What I like or don't like is of no consequence. But I am definitely biased against behavior that tends to ruin a soul's likelihood of coming to know Jesus and robbing Him of their companionship, including the kind that relishes condemnation and violent usurpation of God's prerogative to mete out just administration of punishment upon unrepentant sinners.

You mean the truth

If you'd like to present some conclusive biological evidence that a person's lifelong preference for gender in intimate companionship is irrevocably fixed at birth, that would be very interesting to see.

What would you consider "conclusine" In a technical sense concussive is impossible. There is for example no "conclusive" roof that illnesses are cause by microscopic organisms, just a whole lot of evidence showing that.

When it comes to evidence what you like and don't like is of consequence. You have already admitted bias and have set up a pat rejection when you put up the unsupported claim that the results in scientific research are up for bids.

So just what evidence would not just get tossed in the garbage?

If the instance was 0.08 or 8000 times as likely, would you be compelled to change your view of the subject of the thread?

If just one child was abused by his or her parents for being LGBT I would consider it wrong. Wouldn't you?

You mean the way you dismissed my very own son's story? He was only confused when he didn't exhibit any symptoms of confusion, right? About 8 years ago, for a month or two, at least, he was truly in touch with who he really is, right? For the other 37 years and, to date, he's just been living in torturous denial, right, TinMan? His mom or I smuggled in some conversion therapy, wasn't that it? If you have trouble remembering, I can post a link for you to read where you implied all of this stuff.

that is all your creation, not mine

Not that you owe me anything, honestly, but if you want to see an outpouring of compassion for a single second-hand story here and there that's intense enough to overshadow principle, you might at least try to fake some for a first-hand story, yourself.

Hey, I get it. The story's only worth telling if it has the emotionally evocative potential to paint all the holders of the opposing viewpoint as unconscionable monsters.

that is also all your creation.

Greek tragedy puts more posteriors in the seats than happily-ever-after tales, I realize. And I understand how postmodern philosophy works.

Who are we kidding here, anyway? I could never give Gabriel's story enough consideration or attention to prevent you from weaponizing words like "dismiss."

but you did dismiss it. and your feeling on full display.

The only thing you would accept would be a capitulation to the view that sexual immorality is actually not immoral at all.

I eagerly await your fairness/incredulity/projection-charged reply (just "poking fun").

No, It's kind of obvious that you aren't just poking fun

Or, you could actually address some of my points.

.

like your "genetic evil"?

 

[TinMan]

I expected that you might explain how such a thing can exist.

Children are NOT sexual beings.

Orientation isn't all about sex.

Apart from sexual activity, LGBTQ is meaningless. Therefore, an LGBTQ child is an empty, meaningless concept.

You reject love and romance and emotional bonding as part of LGBT orientation. Seems the only thing empty is you.

 

[TinMan]

The concept of "mother" implies the concept of "father." Mitochondrial traits are inherited from the mother, but a woman doesn't become a mother until she mates with a man. I hate to be so blunt but you are working overtime to use your intelligence to avoid the obvious.

You just tried to falsely claim that inheritance had to come from both parents, It doesn't.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

It's only obvious and funny to you, big boy.

No, other spiritually minded people understand what 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 is saying.... it's not of any private interpretation.

Sorry to hear of your lack of joy!

 

[BarneyFife]

What would you consider "conclusine" In a technical sense concussive is impossible.

So just what evidence would not just get tossed in the garbage?

I believe this is cause for what you would call an "irony alert." You are the undisputed champion of incredulity.

Take it in a non-technical, non-conclusive way, if you like. You can't produce anything from a mainstream scientific source that supports the idea that "sexual orientation" is irrevocably fixed at birth, and I would hope that you know that.

If just one child was abused by his or her parents for being LGBT I would consider it wrong. Wouldn't you?

If parents even thought about abusing one child "for being LGBT" (whatever that means) or for any other reason I would know it was wrong. I don't need the specificity of some perceived offense to identify abuse as wrong. You don't seem to get that, for reasons that are mind-numbingly elusive to me.

...none of which has anything to do with the moral position of homosexuality itself.

that is all your creation, not mine
that is also all your creation.

Disgusting

but you did dismiss it. and your feeling on full display.

Way to double down.

No, It's kind of obvious that you aren't just poking fun

That's very perceptive of you.

like your "genetic evil"?

Or, just anything that doesn't amount to a reply of:

• "Prove it!"
• "That's not fair"
• "I know you are but what am I?!!"

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Well, you obviously missed this scripture which differentiates between spiritually minded and carnal minded... you must be on the carnal minded side

It's only obvious and funny to you, big boy.

No, other spiritually minded people understand what 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 is saying.... it's not of any private interpretation.

Sorry to hear of your lack of joy!

Yeah, I can tell by your

that you're just devastated.

.

 

[TinMan]

I believe this is cause for what you would call an "irony alert." You are the undisputed champion of incredulity.

Take it in a non-technical, non-conclusive way, if you like. You can't produce anything from a mainstream scientific source that supports the idea that "sexual orientation" is irrevocably fixed at birth, and I would hope that you know that.

I can easily. However the question is what would you not just reject out of hand.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You just tried to falsely claim that inheritance had to come from both parents, It doesn't.

You are misremembering the conversion. We began this line of questioning by talking about blue eyes and recessive traits. What I said about recessive traits is true.

You are attempting to argue, incorrectly, that orientation is biologically determined, which is not true. Sexual orientation is not inherited.

As I mentioned before, "Orientation" is defined in terms of a person's sexual identity or self-identification. The word "orientation" (in the context of this discussion) refers to the fact of someone being sexually or romantically attracted to people of a particular gender. However this generalization is inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. (Thinking of people in terms of their classification is evil in my opinion.)

A person doesn't fall in love with a gender; he or she falls in love with another person. Most aspects of attraction are unique to each individual. Arousal is only one aspect of attraction and is the least interesting. People are attracted to those who like them back and show interest in them. People are attracted to those who share common interests. They are attracted to those in close proximity and enjoy similar activities.

Let me say it again, arousal is only one of the many aspects of sexual attraction and it's the least interesting and the least satisfying. There are many factors that can make someone attractive to others, such as physical appearance, personality, behavior, and attitude. But falling in love with a person is a personal, unique experience between two individuals.

Even if someone is aroused by the same sex, one is not obligated to mate with such a person. The Christian infilled by the Spirit of God will put God's will before his or her own. "Not my will but your will be done." If a man is attracted to another man, he should remain celibate. If a woman is attracted to another woman, she should remain celibate i.e. sexually inactive.

 

[BarneyFife]

I can easily. However the question is what would you not just reject out of hand.

Well, a source with a name like "Journal Of GLBT Family Studies" would probably seem suspect if being suggested as mainstream.

If you don't have anything, that's fine, but quit stalling.

.

 

[TinMan]

You are misremembering the conversion. We began this line of questioning by talking about blue eyes and recessive traits. What I said about recessive traits is true.

You are attempting to argue, incorrectly, that orientation is biologically determined, which is not true.

Evidence? and I mean actual evidence not just you saying it's so.

Sexual orientation is not inherited.

You are right it isn't directly inherited.

As I mentioned before, "Orientation" is defined in terms of a person's sexual identity or self-identification. The word "orientation" (in the context of this discussion) refers to the fact of someone being sexually or romantically attracted to people of a particular gender. However this generalization is inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading.

It's not a generalization. The fact you don't like the definition does not make it inaccurate, incomplete or misleading.

(Thinking of people in terms of their classification is evil in my opinion.)

I'm sure black people everywhere are agreeing with you.

A person doesn't fall in love with a gender; he or she falls in love with another person.

Of a particular gender

Most aspects of attraction are unique to each individual.

Not really. Most people have a generalized concept of physical attraction based on gender, secondary sex characteristics, and facial symmetry. Emotional attraction based on empathic connection, social ques, and personal compatibility. and so on. Physically and romantically attractive people are usually attractive to just about everyone.

Arousal is only one aspect of attraction and is the least interesting. People are attracted to those who like them back and show interest in them. People are attracted to those who share common interests. They are attracted to those in close proximity and enjoy similar activities.

Let me say it again, arousal is only one of the many aspects of sexual attraction and it's the least interesting and the least satisfying. There are many factors that can make someone attractive to others, such as physical appearance, personality, behavior, and attitude.

All of which contribute to arousal.

But falling in love with a person is a personal, unique experience between two individuals.

Even if someone is aroused by the same sex, one is not obligated to mate with such a person.

if someone is aroused by the opposite sex one is not obligated to mate with such a person.

The Christian infilled by the Spirit of God will put God's will before his or her own. "Not my will but your will be done." If a man is attracted to another man, he should remain celibate.

Why?

If a woman is attracted to another woman, she should remain celibate i.e. sexually inactive.

Why?

 

[TinMan]

Well, a source with a name like "Journal Of GLBT Family Studies" would probably seem suspect if being suggested as mainstream.

Why?
Any reason beyond personal prejudice?

If you don't have anything, that's fine, but quit stalling.

.

Why? You've already said you won't honestly look at anything.

 

[Wrangler]

So what did 8 year old Raphael do that was so evil it provoked his parents to torture, mutilate and kill him?

I've answered this question many times. Why do you keep asking?

Let me give a couple of analogies that might help. In the name of Freedom of Speech, a White man can walk up and down a predominantly Black neighborhood waving the Confederate Flag and yelling racial epithets. Yet, few would be surprised if this provoked the Black community to violence. Only a fool would be so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the guy do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder.

2nd example is 8 year old Raphael. You cling to his story so tightly because it has something to do with the abuse of freedom you blindly advocate. You keep asking what he did that was so evil that it provoked such a response. I've answered this numerous times. Just because the response was evil does not make Raphael not evil, not a sinner. Like the White man above, Raphael was only exercising his Freedom of Speech. In this case, you are a fool, so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the 8 year old Raphael do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder. You know what he did. You just deny there is evil in it.

So desperate are you to deny the evil of the cause you advocate, you initially presumed it impossible for evil to be in one so young. Yet, when asked how old does someone have to be to sin, you ignored the question. This is because you know your whole line of advocacy cannot withstand scrutiny.

So, I end at the beginning. You know that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, right?

 

[Naomanos]

I've answered this question many times. Why do you keep asking?

Let me give a couple of analogies that might help. In the name of Freedom of Speech, a White man can walk up and down a predominantly Black neighborhood waving the Confederate Flag and yelling racial epithets. Yet, few would be surprised if this provoked the Black community to violence. Only a fool would be so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the guy do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder.

2nd example is 8 year old Raphael. You cling to his story so tightly because it has something to do with the abuse of freedom you blindly advocate. You keep asking what he did that was so evil that it provoked such a response. I've answered this numerous times. Just because the response was evil does not make Raphael not evil, not a sinner. Like the White man above, Raphael was only exercising his Freedom of Speech. In this case, you are a fool, so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the 8 year old Raphael do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder. You know what he did. You just deny there is evil in it.

So desperate are you to deny the evil of the cause you advocate, you initially presumed it impossible for evil to be in one so young. Yet, when asked how old does someone have to be to sin, you ignored the question. This is because you know your whole line of advocacy cannot withstand scrutiny.

So, I end at the beginning. You know that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, right?

He was 8 years old? What could he have actually done?

I understand you're not excusing the parents, I appreciate that. However, what could the 8 year old actually have done?

I don't think he in anyway sinned, if he said he was gay. He was 8 years old. What 8 year old understands what they are saying at that age with a complete understanding? What is the age of accountability in your mind?

I do not for one second believe that he "got what was coming to him" as your posts have said without saying. At least that is how I am reading them. Is this what you're saying?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Evidence? and I mean actual evidence not just you saying it's so.

I don't need evidence because I already argued that it was a logical impossibility. If we postulate that biologically determined orientation is an aspect of the natural order, then there are only two means by which such a thing is possible: 1) God created it that way, which is unlikely or 2) natural selection, which is impossible since there is only one orientation that results in the propagation of genetic material: male-female. Even if a gene is inherited by the mother, it still requires a father to make a baby. And only one orientation results in a baby. Orientation is not listed among the inherited traits through the mother.

You are right it isn't directly inherited.

It isn't inherited at all.

It's not a generalization. The fact you don't like the definition does not make it inaccurate, incomplete or misleading.

The generalization is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading for the reasons I stated. Go back and read my argument.

I'm sure black people everywhere are agreeing with you.

Even in the case of Black people. No one likes to be known according to the flesh -- even black people. If Joe is acknowledged to be the best Jazz musician in Chicago, to classify him as "the best black musician is insulting to Joe, as if he couldn't compete in a white world.

Likewise, if someone said that Hurley is the best white center on a team in the NBA, one might say, "Why couldn't they find a black guy?" Hurley doesn't want to be known as the best white guy. He wants to be acknowledged for his skill as a BB player, apart from his race. His race shouldn't matter.

Sexual attraction should not be classified based on gender as it overlooks the most crucial aspect of sexual attraction: the human connection between individuals. If I had chosen my wife solely based on her race, any woman of the same race would have sufficed. However, that was not the case. I chose Zoe because of her kind, considerate, Christian, good-hearted, giving, generous, and understanding nature. I picked HER, a person, through a personal choice. Social classifications are mere generalizations that do not aid in seeking wisdom and living a good life. Classifications such as LGBT do nothing but divide and cause wrangling and disputes.

Not really. Most people have a generalized concept of physical attraction based on gender, secondary sex characteristics, and facial symmetry. Emotional attraction based on empathic connection, social ques, and personal compatibility. and so on. Physically and romantically attractive people are usually attractive to just about everyone.

You have overlooked the most crucial factor in attraction: personality and character. As I mentioned earlier, if we limit our selection to looks and chemistry, then the pool of candidates becomes vast, potentially numbering in the hundreds or even thousands. In my search for a partner, I made the choice to focus on finding someone with a unique personality and character, which narrowed the field down to a single choice. While there were numerous white, beautiful, kind, empathetic, and personally compatible women in my college, (according to your list,) only a few had the exceptional personality and character that my partner Zoe possesses. She is truly one of a kind, and I feel very lucky to have found her.

When choosing a life partner, it is important to select an individual rather than a group, class, or family. I consider the attributes of the person and assess their significance and importance which helps me narrow down the choices. For me, an individual's character holds more weight than their physical attributes. I am searching for a specific person who possesses all the qualities that I value.

All of which contribute to arousal.

Let's keep this above the waistline. :)

if someone is aroused by the opposite sex one is not obligated to mate with such a person.

My point exactly. But we are discussing the concept of "orientation", which has no meaning apart from sexuality. What would it mean for me to say, for example, that I prefer beer with pizza rather than Coke if I never eat pizza? We understand the meaning of words within the context where they appear.

You maintain that homosexuality isn't immoral in the same way that having blue eyes isn't immoral. You argue that orientation is an innate attribute of human existence and therefore God can't hold man responsible for homosexual activity.

If we suppose, as you suggested, that orientation is inherited through the mother. We can only surmise that an orientation other than male-female is a chronic hereditary disorder caused by a genetic defect. In that case, in order to satisfy morality, one must remain celibate.

Why?

For obvious reasons. Homosexual attraction is an impure desire, which is contrary to the will of God. The committed worshipper of God will set aside his own wants and desires and ask for what he desires instead.

Why?

Same reason. Many of us are faced with impure desires, such as sleeping with another man's wife, or sleeping with another wife's husband. All of the attributes of attraction are in play, including emotional connections, proximity, availability, physical attraction, etc. Just as adultery is wrong, so are other sexual practices that take place outside of God's will for marriage. Given that a man or a woman has impure thoughts and desires at times, the right choice is to deny oneself fulfillment of these desires.

 

[TinMan]

I've answered this question many times. Why do you keep asking?

Let me give a couple of analogies that might help. In the name of Freedom of Speech, a White man can walk up and down a predominantly Black neighborhood waving the Confederate Flag and yelling racial epithets. Yet, few would be surprised if this provoked the Black community to violence. Only a fool would be so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the guy do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder.

2nd example is 8 year old Raphael. You cling to his story so tightly because it has something to do with the abuse of freedom you blindly advocate. You keep asking what he did that was so evil that it provoked such a response. I've answered this numerous times. Just because the response was evil does not make Raphael not evil, not a sinner. Like the White man above, Raphael was only exercising his Freedom of Speech. In this case, you are a fool, so blindly devoted to Freedom of Speech as to keep asking what did the 8 year old Raphael do to provoke torture, mutiliation and murder. You know what he did. You just deny there is evil in it.

So desperate are you to deny the evil of the cause you advocate, you initially presumed it impossible for evil to be in one so young. Yet, when asked how old does someone have to be to sin, you ignored the question. This is because you know your whole line of advocacy cannot withstand scrutiny.

So, I end at the beginning. You know that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, right?

No I don't know what he did. You have never maned up enough to say what he did. He was 8. You called him evil. You claimed he somehow provoked his parents into their action. You are the one saying he got what he deserved. What exactly did he do to deserve death?