Its a self defeating statement. By definition its an improper relationship and liberals say its not. At best its something strange, base, not ideal, and not appropriate in the same way I dont think churches who celebrate halloween are necessarily sinning but some people think its not appropriate.
Apparently the new term for pedophilia is 'cross-generational sexual relations'. https://www.manipalthetalk.org/rights/pedophilia-the-unwanted-gate-crasher-of-the-lgbtq-community/
Well, that was a softball. https://www.afa.net/the-stand/cultu...le-link-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia/ "One pathology that LGBT activists will not acknowledge is the unmistakable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children stated flatly that “the vast majority of the offenders are male.” (The information in these paragraphs is found in the publication, “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality” from the Family Research Council.) The Journal of Sex & Married Therapy, in a study of male sex offenders against children, found that one-third of the offenders directed their sexual activity against males. And the Journal of Sex Research found that homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of sex offenses against children. This fact is particularly disturbing. Homosexuals comprise just two percent of the population, yet are responsible for 33% of all child sexual abuse. They offend against children at 16 times the rate of the normal population. The Archives of Sexual Behavior, in a study of 229 convicted child molesters, found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
The homosexual fetishist 'movement' has always had strong ties to pedophile gangs; NAMBLA was a founding member organization of the ILGA, and some of its members were also 'leaders' in other homosexual fetishist organizations both here in the U.S. and in Europe. Harry Hay was a huge supporter of NAMBLA and some claim he was its Founder as well.
True, and don't forget almost all the perps and victims in the Catholic Church scandals are male. It isn't a pedophile issue, it's a homosexual issue. The Boy Scouts too.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! All you have is a STUDENT BLOG from someone who HATES the LBGT community? Sad! But thanks for PROVING me 100% CORRECT that you are INCAPABLE of substantiating your original DISINGENUOUS falsehood about the LBGT community.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that an EXTREMIST HATE site like the AFA has any credibility? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-family-association/ But thanks for once AGAIN proving that I am 100% CORRECT that you are incapable of providing any CREDIBLE substantiation for the FALSEHOODS that you are alleging about the LBGT community.
Yet MORE falsehoods in the content above? Isn't there a COMMANDMENT against bearing false witness? Doesn't seem to matter when it comes to extremist HATRED of the LBGT community.
Hey, Spooky! I chose your post to reply to only because it matches my recollection of the New Testament, which I haven't read in quite a few years, now, but which I did read, from time to time, many years after I ceased being a part of any organized Christian religion. Many of the posts here have snippets of things I'd wish to respond to but so much else, besides, that's all over the place. The thing that struck me about the story of Sodom & Gomorrah (from the Old Testament) was that when those angels knocked at the door of man who was later judged to be, "righteous," because he wouldn't give up his visitors to the other men of the city pounding at his door to have them (for carnal activities), that man, who I guess must've been Lot, offered to throw out his daughter for them to rape instead! What a paradigm of goodness. On that same tack, there was one of the other patriarchs of Judaism who fathered a child by his daughter-in-law, not knowingly, but because he thought she was a prostitute (who I think he tried to cheat on the fee, as well). I wish I hadn't lost my bible copy or I could be much more specific, though I would imagine others in this thread would know the story to which I'm referring. The question is, will their interpretation be faithful to the original? Because I remember thinking that father of the Jewish nation was a real scum***. I hope that doesn't offend you, Spooky. Do you know the story to which I'm referring? It might have been the father of Onan, whose name I only remember because it led to the term onanism (referring to when a man withdraws before ejaculation). But the bigger picture is definitely a major thread of misogyny running through the Judeo-Christian history. I think it was cirdellin, here, who noted Paul's wresting a good bit of doctrinal authority for himself & away, in effect, from the teachings of Jesus. And so much of Christian intolerance comes from those letters. If you don't mind extending your hospitality for one more paragraph, another poster here was partly right about something. In early Judaism, like in most other religions of that time & location, god (Yaweh) had a, "wife," or female consort, a Goddess. I believe it was Anat, if I'm a-not mistaken. So it WASN'T monotheistic, from the start. But at some point, clearly, a major change took place to supress the concept of feminine Divinity. It's a fascinating topic, in part because of its ramifications & impact to this day. There's more I could add, but I'll look for a post that more closely relates to my intended musings, or wait for an invitation.
The point should be, if something is natural, it can't be a perversion; unless one takes the view that Nature is perverse (which, granted, was the view of the Medieval Catholic Church). For, if nature is writhe with perversion, who else but God created it?
@One Mind (continuing here, about Nature, because a, "connectivity problem," between my phone & political forum prevented me from adding this through, "edit")-- From my understanding, biologists have found homosexuality to exist within many species. In fact, BONOBOS, which are as closely-related to human beings as are chimpanzees, sexually gratify one another on a regular basis, regardless of gender, as a way of dispelling excess tension, of providing reassurance, and so forth. And Bonobo culture, as a result, is far more harmonious than the comparative belligerence which exists w/in the much more violent social interactions of Chimp culture. (Just in case you were wondering-- not that it really should matter-- my perspective is not that of a gay person).
For the many who seem to want to approach this question from a logical standpoint-- i.e., "what could explain sex with no chance of procreation?"-- I can provide a logical answer, if your curiosity is sincere. My mental disposition requires me to examine this question through an anthropological lens. It is known that humans are tribal by nature. Modern, analytic DNA study has shown that, for a significant time in the not-so-distant past of the last ice age, mating rights in human groups was the same as among gorillas or lions. That is, the tribal chief possessed sole reproductive rights with all women in the tribe; any other man caught breaking this taboo faced death, either from direct violence or, if he escaped, from being alone at a time when man's need for community, to survive, had been greatly enhanced (some few bastards, naturally, were nevertheless produced). So, in a group dynamic dependent upon the communal efforts of the men for each person's survival, but which rejected the spelt contributions of most, it seems that being homosexual would be an advantage both to the individual-- because we all know sex provides biological benefits beyond just reproducing-- and to the tribe, in allowing the group's focus to swing from murderously-horny scheming to successfully hunting mammoth.
A Father & a Son, naturally, couldn't reproduce, so this seems to contradict the earlier sentences of the paragraph, by leaving out Mrs. God. But there is another way to think of it, as well. If one accepts that God is all things, or that there is nothing that exists that goes beyond the boundaries of God's attributes, then God must be not only male but female, as well. Otherwise, femininity would be extra-Godlike, that is, outside of the reality of God's own being, a quality surpassing any possessed by God. But how could this be so? Therefore, would it not be reasonable to conclude that, "God," must be BOTH male & female in nature? There is a linguistic argument for this as well. Though I do not know ancient Hebrew, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the studious voices here can verify this (or find that my source had been inaccurate): it's my understanding that in Judaism's main branch, the name for God is, "Elohim." The interesting thing I read about that word is that it is a unique combination of a singular, male root, "Elo-/Eloh-," with a plural, female suffix, "-im," or, "-him," I forget which (though wouldn't it be ironic if, "him," was feminine & plural in ancient Hebrew? Since I've found life to be nothing if not ironic, I'm guessing that's the ending). In the last paragraph of my post #139, I looked at what you said about God's sex & marital/relationship status from another angle, considering the temples of Anat, which once stood paired with those of Yaweh, if you're interested in checking that out.
While I can imagine some taking issue w/ your interpretations of the David & Ruth stories, the news that the word homosexual was a mistranslation of pederast is a mind-blowing revelation that, in consideration of all the harm that's come from it, any sense of righteousness demands should get worldwide promotion! I wonder if that will happen when the book comes out. I wonder if the Catholic Church will accept the findings. I wonder if it'll make a difference to people who've grown up hating gays. A really important & fascinating article. Thanks for posting the link!
It is when you oppose your secular and humanistic dogmas on others, we have a problem. As a Christian, I believe our tenants of faith within our conscious are beneficial to all. You will not discount that.
I think you might have something there DEF. If you were to acknowledge the part where "God looked at Adam and saw he was alone" it could be said he was "incomplete". So God Created Eve.....then they were completely in the form of the Creator only sovereign over their own flesh. That is why when they "marry" (in the Godly sense)" they become one flesh". There is a lot to be said about the strength and weaknesses of male and female. Each different and uniquely held aside from the physical.
What you have excerpted misrepresents the article to which you provided a link. The best you could say from it, to support your view, is that there are differing opinions on the matter. This is the opinion which the article author decided should go first: According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this “mysterious” Greek word into English as the word “homosexuals,” even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who “placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.”6 White blames this bad translation for the inability of many NT scholars today to make the proper, culturally relevant application of this passage in 1Corinthians. He adds, “In the past, people used Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it happening again? Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?'”7... The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”8 In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: “Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So…this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.”9 And here is the 3rd canvassed view from your article: Sparse and Ambiguous Evidence? Theologian John H. Elliott, Professor Emeritus of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Francisco, has written one of the most thorough studies of 1Corinthians6:9-10 to date.12 He concludes that “nothing in 1Corinthians, or for that matter in any other biblical writing, speaks directly of the biological or psychological condition of homosexuality or homosexual ‘orientation’ as this is understood today and as it concerns believing Christian gay persons intent on worshipping and serving God.”13 He concludes from his research that the Bible in its entirety, as with 1Corinthians specifically, offers sparse and ambiguous evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships, and is “conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to those of modern times to provide an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality as homosexuality is currently understood.”14 If a case is to be made for or against the morality of homosexuality as it is understood in contemporary society, Elliott argues, it will have to be made on evidence other than 1Corinthians6:9-10 and other similar passages contained in the Bible. Speaking for myself, whenever I see someone being dishonest about what their own sources say, I feel it reflects poorly both on the legitimacy of whatever argument they are making, as well on the quality of character possessed by the person making it.
Specifically about gay sex? No, nothing comes to mind; however, he wasn't particularly keen on erotic pursuits, generally, so if he did comment, I doubt it was to recommend it.
My own personal take is this.... Jesus did not address the issue of "erotic pursuits" because His mission was to expound upon what the Jewish Nation already knew (at least within their law) Most Jews, I believe, really desired to know the true "nature" of God. Jesus wanted it applied within their hearts. The Apostle Paul addressed the gentile Nations and expounded on "erotic pursuits" because they had many gods, some of whom specialized in "erotic pursuits". Jesus did expound on the marital institution, it's purpose, and the fact it is a foreshadow of Jesus and the Church. That alone will define what the intent and true nature of God is. Only people with a clear desire to know the intent of God will clearly understand that.
