"What does God really say about gay relationships?"

Not sure which part of that you don't understand?

Nothing else in scripture justifies this position. You have to embrace an essentially unbelievable position to make it work. Whereas the likelihood that he's condemning homosexuality is high as it's consistent with the rest of the bible.

No they're not getting married in the sight of God. They can't. It's impossible. They can get legal recognition of their "marriage" but they'll never get married in the sight of God. But we're talking semantics here.

That's simply not accurate. Not only does it fly in the face of all understanding of marriage from the bible but it also goes against the description of marriage by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Jesus explicitly says in describing marriage that God made them male and female. He then goes on to state FOR THIS REASON (that God made them male and female) they are to leave their father and mother and be joined.

He EXPLICITLY describes marriage as being between a male and a female and states BECAUSE God made them male and female, they are to get married.

Now, looking at the eunuchs born thus from their mother's womb comment. Lets review the interpretations... your interpretation is basically that Jesus is actually referring to people born without genitalia and that somehow this means it would be better if he didn't get married.

My interpretation is that he's actually referring to a person who is not attracted to females but to males only. My interpretation fits the statements in verse 4. God made them male and female, not male and male. That actually makes sense in the context of the discussion.

Your interpretation does not.

Not to mention nowhere in the rest of the bible does having a medical condition make you have a problem in the sight of God. But being gay does. My interpretation is consistent. Yours is not because you're attempting to manipulate scripture to justify homosexual behavior.

 

Simple answer, 'God' doesn't say anything about anything, there is no way to prove that the bible was conceived and written by anything other than man, to say that 'God' wrote the bible either directly or via divine inspiration assumes the premise that 'God' as described by Christians actually exists.

 

That's the one thing all religious people ahver in common.

They all think that they and only they have the one true interpretation and everybody else is wrong and must obey them.

Lord save me from your followers.

 

specifically, nothing. Generally, nothing.

 

Actually I believe Thor is ok with them. Also Zeus, Apollo, and definitely Eros would rejoice in them.

 

Your odd definitions are killing me. Especially with a scenario that doesn't even have a fantastic answer: could slave owners free their own slaves? Yes. I don't know of any documented cases, but that doesn't mean it couldn't ever happen.

If we go with the rest of the Bible, then homosexuality is an equal offense to eating shrimp or shaving your beard. And I don't believe it's an unbelievable position. He was telling people how to behave and treat their relationships.

Here's a thought to take home with you. Right there, your statement should tell you that you should keep this issue out of politics and in your place of worship. I know that this is not the political debate. But I wonder how much backing the political argument against gay marriage would exist if the Christian right would make this realization already. Rand Paul already threw up his hands in a gesture of "wtf cares anymore". Already the fight against gay marriage is losing.

As to whether or not it's "impossible" for gays to marry before the sight of God, this another inconsistency I have a problem with. If you believe that marriage is of God, and quite specifically the Christian God, shouldn't all nonChristian marriages be just as offensive?

There's a kink in that argument and that is the lack of condemnation Jesus offers to anything outside of that description. The Scriptures do not include a verse that says, "And Jesus also said unto them, 'And let not two men marry each other.'"

My problem again is that even though the Bible said God made male and female for each other, nowhere (except the Levitical law which in itself creates problems for your argument) does it condemn anything outside of that equation. In FACT taking the Bible as a whole, the Bible also didn't have a problem with polygamy. This "one man, one woman" business is simply a desire to control the status quo of society.

You want to look at what the Bible and only the Bible has to say about behavior and reality. That in itself is a problem. What should be happening is we need to look at everything. Our own environment, new studies, science, all that. If the Bible told you that horses only have three legs, and you obviously see many horses with 4 legs, what's your response. My response: the Bible doesn't have all the answers, your response: I'm guessing probably coming to the conclusion that anything modern science classifies as a horse is not a horse if it has 4 legs.

It sounds like I went off on a tangent there. My point is, I believe my interpretations make sense not just with what the rest of the Bible says, but because it makes sense with reality. The Bible seems to treat homosexuality as an untouchable subject. It never sees homosexuals as capable of having long term relationships. The reality? They're capable of having long term relationships. In fact reality trumps a lot of misconceptions that Christians have of homosexuals.

I didn't say that having a medical condition makes you have a problem in the sight of God. The verse you gave is says that it would be better for eunuchs to not marry. That's not condemning to eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual desire, which is a major part that most couples of a specific intimacy value, especially ones who want to get married. This actually makes a lot of sense.

And why is it that homosexuality is so important to Bible believers, when Bible believers can't even agree on the MOST IMPORTANT part of their religion: SALVATION!

 

Why are liberals so obsessed with it to the extent that any sort of disagreement in any way is seen as hateful?

And why do liberals get to have the monopoly on morality? And why is liberal morality so superior to anybody else that we peons have no other choice in the matter but to obey, and unquestionly obey, or your a hateful bigot?

True tolerance is not like this at all.

 

Why do you act the way you claim liberals act?

 

The only thing you guys say is that I'm a bigot, no matter what, and no matter how hard I try to show you you[re wrong, you just keep repeating the same things over and over with it. That is the only things out of your mouths. You can't possibly imagine you're wrong, and you have to punish me and correct me any way you can to get me to change my mind and agree with you.

It's you asshats that can't see anything else other than your own vanity.

So, if you can't beat them, join them.

So I'm just going to be the bigot you claim I am.

Congratulations. You win. You're getting what you want.

 

ever think that maybe you might be wrong? And when did I call you a bigot?

By the way, I am conservative.

 

Why should I when nobody else admits they're wrong when they're shown to be wrong?

Such as your lie about the Bible.

Do you ever think you could be wrong about that?

 

When was I shown to be wrong?

Well if I was shown to be, if course. So far I haven't seen such. You are saying it happened, based on what? All I really hard was his people disagree with me.

Again when did I call you a bigot? Do you know what that word means?

 

Garbage.

The website's owner is first stating he was "born that way" when there is no proof whatsoever, and worse, he's using that as a foundation from which to launch attacks against people, labeling those who don't go along as bigots and worse.

If that isn't dishonesty, I don't know what is.

Or maybe I do?

It's pretending the Bible is gay-friendly by offering the usual revisionist canned theological arguments about "shrine prostitutes" and "not referring to born gays" as if it's been proven there's such a thing to begin with.

Is there such a history of the early church fathers teaching these scriptures in the context these activists believe it to be? Nope.

Now we know why most gay Christians prefer sola scriptura - it's easier to twist.

This site doesn't even present all verses on sexuality and marriage, but rather just the ones it thinks it can attack.

Among what does it leave out?

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matt 19:4-5 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

There is not a single neutral, let alone positive, mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible.

 

So you are as guilty as others by placing your interpretations onto scripture that doesn't even mention homosexuality .. hypocritical really.

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not a subject of choice. It is really sad that anti-SSM ignore the very relevant research in the area, of what I call, mental gender .. but of course if they were to actually take the time to read and understand it-it would deal a very big blow to their ideology.

It is already a pretty much established fact that humans/animals have both a physical gender and a mental one, Physical gender is set from the moment of conception where as mental gender does not become a reality until the brain forms, and that formation can be influenced by hormones .. specifically testosterone. It is also a fact that ALL humans have female brains during the initial formation and it is the level of numerous hormones that influence how that brain develops into a male or female gender (and anything in between) it is not something the individual has any choice in, so to say that a homosexual is born that way is in fact scientifically correct.

 

If you want to engage in ad hominem tu quoque, make sure I at the least am committing the thing you're accusing me of.

The scriptures that website tries to debunk indeed DO mention homosexual behavior, but they're trying to cull it to meaning mention only of "temple prostitutes" and "those who choose to be gay," when the verses don't say that. It mentions the behavior, period - and leaves no exceptions.

That's not MY interpretation and again as I said - no early Church fathers make these statements that the gay Christian revisionist camp make. It simply isn't there.

The only mentions of acceptable sexuality in the Bible are man/woman in a marriage. Period. Claiming otherwise is dishonesty.

You can argue that all you like, but there is no scientific proof of this.

And as usual, those emotionally invested in a certain viewpoint like to cherry pick singular studies in the area of their advocacy. Those mean nothing. I'm referring to a lack of a scientific consensus of which are only reached after many years of replicated studies. We don't have that yet.

Some dude you cite that did some study or studies somewhere isn't proof.

Established where? In the numerous semesters of both psychology and biology I've taken at college, I was never taught such a thing. At the closest, I was taught in a psych class 4 years ago that it MAY be due to a hormonal imbalance during gestation, which sounds like a birth defect.

But again, that is a MAY, as in not proven, speculative. A possibility. And nothing more.

Furthermore, you've offered no proof that this is the ONLY means a person may speculatively exhibit homosexual behavior. You're taking that for granted. I don't.

Stretching it beyond what it is doesn't prove anything and it's not a defense of homosexual Biblical revisionism.

 

No He didn't, because He never messes up and He never created homosexuals.

There are no such urges in human beings.

And for good reason, obviously.

 

Quite obviously you are, or can you point out where in your cited scriptures homosexuality is even mentioned?

Again this is nothing more than interpretation and there are plenty of scholars who would disagree with you and agree with the author of the article .. so why should your interpretations be any more relevant than theirs?

Quite obviously you agree with the interpretation you have given, so the question remains why is that interpretation any more valid than another.

you do also know, I assume, that the condemnation was not for homosexuality itself but for one man taking the passive role of a woman.

Actually polygamy is also acceptable, as is rape in the bible.

Well actually there is.

For those that care to look there are plenty of studies done on this issue, but of course I understand your reluctance to actually do the research, so i'll help you out a little;

http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html

Extract - During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) is programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexualism. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.

or here - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sex...rientation.pdf

or here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17074984

Extract - Testosterone plays an important role in mammalian brain development. In neural regions with appropriate receptors testosterone, or its metabolites, influences patterns of cell death and survival, neural connectivity and neurochemical characterization. Consequently, testosterone exposure during critical periods of early development produces permanent behavioural changes. In humans, affected behaviours include childhood play behaviour, sexual orientation, core gender identity and other characteristics that show sex differences

See above, all peer reviewed studies.

See above.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17074984

Not in the slightest, I have not stated anywhere that this is the ONLY means a person may speculatively exhibit homosexual behavior, so your attempt at the strawman is noted.

I am stretching nothing .. BTW neither is your interpretation of scripture a defence against homosexuality.

 

In the source link of the opening post on this thread. You didn't look at it?

Because you're inventing the idea that the Bible is a matter of private interpretation by individuals. It isn't. Never was until Martin Luther came along. There is nothing in the writings of the early Church fathers that agree with the revisionist homosexual position. There are no Bible verses that mention gay marriage or ANY type of sexuality aside from heterosexual within a marriage that is not sinful. This is not "interpretation." This is fact. It's in plain language, for those willing to see that don't suffer from confirmation bias.

There is no "the verse says this but really means this." This is a game, and a dishonest one.

Traditional Christian teachings not only come from what the Bible says but also what the early Church fathers taught; those who were taught personally by the Apostles or those who were taught by those who learned at the foot of the Apostles. To call this simply a matter of bigotry is a grotesque misrepresentation of Christian theology and an outright slanderous lie.

Again, it's not my interpretation. It's what the Bible says. You're trying to reinterpret out of what it says plainly. This is dishonest theology and again it has no basis in Church history.

And that is a revisionist position that did not exist before the 20th century. The Bible is clear: A man should marry a woman and become one. Sexuality outside of this context is not accepted.

And you admit that indirectly by "interpretation." You're trying to interpret out the heterosexual-only marriages that are in the scriptures because you don't like them.

No surprise, this is also a Biblically-ignorant and revisionist position. Commonly those that want to attack the Bible conflate with something being mentioned someone did in the Bible as being accepted behavior by God. You also fail to understand the flow of revelation and that was once practiced under Old Law isn't necessarily valid under the New Covenant, such as dietary restrictions.

This kind of attack doesn't justify the false idea that homosexual behavior and marriage are Biblically accepted. It's an attempt at ad hominem tu quoque.

I've already explained the difference between an accepted proven scientific consensus by validated, replicated studies. All you've done following here is invoke what I just discussed; that individual studies (peer reviewed or not) do not establish and prove a fact by scientific consensus.

This is called cherry picking and exaggerating the worth of individual studies.

If you want to claim it's accepted by consensus, then let's see it. That you present single studies in a journal or two proves that it isn't.

What science textbook teaches your claims? There isn't one, because it doesn't exist. Textbooks contain the accepted scientific consensus, not individual studies which are preliminary and have not been replicated and proven to be factual and accepted.

See above. None of your individual links are relevant. You're exaggerating the meaning and impact of single studies.

This thread is full of we're-born-that-way claims and nothing else. This includes the source link in the opening post which tries to show the Bible accepts homosexuality by claiming it only condemns people who aren't born that way but act that way.

I'm not interpreting anything. The Bible says it plainly.

I'm not even religious.

 

Actually I did far closer than you did .. and none of the scriptures you posted state homosexuality.

There is nothing in the bible that explicitly condemns homosexuality, anything in the bible that alludes condemnation is subject to interpretation as has been shown by the fact that there are many scholars who do not agree with it. The fact that you have to resort to an appeal to tradition in order to prompt your opinion shows you are indoctrinated into the mindless sheep mentality.

The verses do not say what you want them to say and as such you have to ignore anything other than what fits your bias.

Here we go again with the appeal to tradition, the assumption that just because something is seen as "traditionally" right that-that must be so.

No it does not, it is nothing more than the interpretation of you and those before you .. alternative interpretations have as much credence as the ones you promote.

Prove it.

What a complete and utter misrepresentation of my position.

Right so Christians get to cherry pick which biblical laws they live under but expect others to abide by the laws they see as relevant.

not attempt at anything, was it not Jesus who said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." and yet in your own comments above you state that "that was once practiced under Old Law isn't necessarily valid under the New Covenant"

Right so if it isn't written in a text book somewhere it isn't correct. Your ideology is no different to that faced by others when they put forward new ideas and were faced with the same denials.

Individual studies are relevant evidence until such time those studies are proven to be false, can you produce anything that shows the studies provided as false?

you mean like you exaggerate what you think the bible says to adhere to what you want it to say.

Where have I claimed this?

Just as I expected you are one of these people who thinks if it isn't in a text book it cannot be correct. As I said there is more than enough evidence from various studies that when placed together prove that mental gender can be different from physical gender.

I am exaggerating nothing, you are just trying to belittle the studies done to suit your agenda.

You accused ME not the thread as a whole, so again please link to my exact quote that states what you accuse me of, otherwise you are trying to create a strawman.

Yes you are, the bible does not say it plainly, and as far as your religious affiliation is concerned I really couldn't care less.

 

was God upset that Adam put on Clothes or that eve did, or was he mad at them both for putting on clothes?

 

What in my responses shows that I consider TheImmortal's views as hateful? I have quite a different threshold for that. The only thing he's commenting on is what the Bible says about gay marriage. I don't know enough about his views to consider his views on homosexuality as hateful.

A... monopoly on morality?

You this is a hilarious new tactic of conservatives: accusing liberals of the very things conservatives have been guilty of. "Monopoly on morality"? You mean the very thing the Christian Right wants more than anything?

Liberals are the ones who, if anything, believe morality is relative. This has actually been a criticism of them by conservatives, that liberals want a world where anything goes. It's not true, of course. Unless you're talking about the extremist liberal rarity, liberals still care about morality.

But you've decided to turn the tables and say, No, liberals are the morality Nazis.

Right...

What's next, Westboro Baptist is a liberal church?

 

Yes, my attraction to the same sex doesn't exist. That's logical.

 

So what? It's a book. One of millions that have been created by men since we developed written language. For you to elevate it above fiction, and claim it is "of gawd", and as such should be followed by all humans, requires you to be guilty of willful blindness. For the stories it tells are so easily disproven that the average 6th grader could do so.

 

So you are saying homosexuals don't exist?

So again you are saying homosexuals don't exist?

Because homosexuals don't exist,

 

....Uh....NOTHING.

Though obviously the people who feel they have the right to put words in it's mouth say quite a bit.