New Testament on homosexuality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you here interpreting my thoughts on his behalf? and ummm, actually the bible admonishes us to put on the mind of Christ.

My point is that for you to clearly understand the design intentions of God, everything that is straight forward, every single subtlety, you must understand the mind of God, especially when you claim crystal clarity on it.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
My point is that for you to clearly understand the design intentions of God, everything that is straight forward, every single subtlety, you must understand the mind of God, especially when you claim crystal clarity on it.

i never claimed anything of the sort, i am crystal clear in my own mind, for that is the best that one can hope for, is it not? are you willing to make the assertion that man and women are not by either a mere physical inspection or a some other aspect, designed to complement one another.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references.

My point, which has been reiterated above, is that it is incoherent to regard an orientation as a choice. Homosexuality, meaning a predisposition to be sexually attracted to members of one's own sex and not the opposite sex, is not a choice, but we can choose whether or not to act upon it.

There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references

Please do. As far as I have heard "there is evidence it MAY be genetic",which means nothing.But,I may be wrong so show me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i never claimed anything of the sort, i am crystal clear in my own mind, for that is the best that one can hope for, is it not?

For your interpretation of God's design to be correct, you must understand God's intentions fully in this regard; as would anyone and this is clearly impossible.
Perhaps it is wrong to say that you have to know the mind of God to have personal crystal clarity, but ultimately to be correct in your interpretation, I say knowing the mind of God (which is impossible) would be necessary.
For me, knowing that I don't know the mind of God and his ultimate intentions I could never say I have crystal clarity on God's intentions.

I guess if he personally told you that would do, but this can never be objectively proven to others, nor can the often misconstrued and vague references in the bible, which aren't direct quotes of God either, be used as ultimate truth on God's design intentions.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
For your interpretation of God's design to be correct, you must understand God's intentions fully in this regard; as would anyone and this is clearly impossible.
Perhaps it is wrong to say that you have to know the mind of God to have personal crystal clarity, but ultimately to be correct in your interpretation, I say knowing the mind of God (which is impo aren't direct quotes of God either, be used as ultimate truth on God's design intentions.

Is not Gods intention perfectly clear in the book of Genesis respecting his purpose for the first human couple, i think so, and i would hardly call the bible vague, on the contrary , the revealed will of God, is quite specific, in not a few matters or cases, one only needs to examine it, for this to be easily asserted and confirmed.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It was clear enough.

Hopefully you now understand my position as well.

I think so. But then you are in a better position to judge that than I am.

I don't dispute your argument that any indictment against homosexuality by Jesus must be inferred, since he did not state it.
I think your interpretation, that no such indictment was intended, is likely to be valid given the premises you hold. But of course I think the same is true of the prohibitionists, their arguments are valid given their premises.

So then perhaps we can reflect that Jesus cannot act as an indicator of correct morality unless we let Jesus into our hearts and let God guide our interpretations. After all, contemporary morality doesn't sit well with the fact that all the disciples were male, or that he didn't unambiguously condemn slavery. While we are at it, perhaps he could have said something constructive about witches.

Or perhaps we could take a different view of the division of doxastic labour and a cadre of experts, priests, should do the interpreting for a living and tell us what to believe. Or any of the solutions in between as evinced by the multitude of Christian denominations.

The bottom line for me is that I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in god, I think Jesus, whoever he was, is dead, and homosexuality is fine. So there 🙂

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references

Please do. As far as I have heard "there is evidence it MAY be genetic",which means nothing.But,I may be wrong so show me.[/b]

It might seem clear that genetically speaking, homosexualiy cannot reproduce itself genetically because they do do not reproduce themselves per se; but I've read several articles saying that homosexuality can increase the reproductive chances of sisters, or perhaps other relations, I'd perhaps describe this as genetic leftovers. I've also read that when there are problems of overpopulation, and I suppose this can be applied more generally, those that are homosexual are certainly productive members of society which do not place their own burdens of raising their own children on the rest of us, but indirectly/directly help those that do, increasing their reproductive chances.

I shall dig these articles up tomorrow if I can, if that interests you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is not Gods intention perfectly clear in the book of Genesis respecting his purpose for the first human couple, i think so, and i would hardly call the bible vague, on the contrary , the revealed will of God, is quite specific, in not a few matters or cases, one only needs to examine it, for this to be easily asserted and confirmed.

Quite honestly I'm not bible person, I have one somewhere though, I'll dig it up if I can find it and I'll read up on Genesis tomorrow and then get back to you on how clear I think it is. Or otherwise you can post a link to it directly.

edit: I doubt its got Genesis actually, its just got the new testement and psalms...

Who wrote the bible then? I hear it was done by a multitude of people but I find it difficult to understand how it could therefore be divinely inspired in all instances and consistently, over time and many translations, original meaning is lost.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references

Please do. As far as I have heard "there is evidence it MAY be genetic",which means nothing.But,I may be wrong so show me.[/b]

I think it is fair to say that it is an area of controversy, but that there is evidence that there is a genetic influence, even if there is no concensus on the details. Tomorrow, I'll see if I can find some references to papers by Dean Hamer, Andrea Campero Ciani and Jeff Hall's work on genetically modified fruit flies that engage in homosexual activity. There is also relevant evidence on brain structure from Simon LeVay, Laura Allen and Roger Gorski and Ivanka Savic-Berglund.

What a lot of work I seem to have created for myself. Bear with me 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think it is fair to say that it is an area of controversy, but that there is evidence that there is a genetic influence, even if there is no concensus on the details. Tomorrow, I'll see if I can find some references to papers by Dean Hamer, Andrea Campero Ciani and Jeff Hall's work on genetically modified fruit flies that engage in homosexual activity. ...[text shortened]... vanka Savic-Berglund.

What a lot of work I seem to have created for myself. Bear with me 🙂

🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think so. But then you are in a better position to judge that than I am.

I don't dispute your argument that any indictment against homosexuality by Jesus must be inferred, since he did not state it.
I think your interpretation, that no such indictment was intended, is likely to be valid given the premises you hold. But of course I think the same is ...[text shortened]... ieve in god, I think Jesus, whoever he was, is dead, and homosexuality is fine. So there 🙂

I don't dispute your argument that any indictment against homosexuality by Jesus must be inferred, since he did not state it.
I think your interpretation, that no such indictment was intended, is likely to be valid given the premises you hold. But of course I think the same is true of the prohibitionists, their arguments are valid given their premises.

I'm not sure what to make of this.

What premises do you think I hold other than "any indictment against homosexuality by Jesus must be inferred" which you seem to agree with?

It seems as if you are saying that the arguments of two opposing sides can both be valid "given their premises". Isn't the validity of one side's argument dependent on the validity of their premises?

Originally posted by Rajk999
So fornicators who dont get married. Thats ok then, becuase its God that caused the sex drive ?

That would be gods judgement. It does appear however that sex drive is more real than God when they are young and want to know what the shouting is all about.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
So then perhaps we can reflect that Jesus cannot act as an indicator of correct morality unless we let Jesus into our hearts and let God guide our interpretations.

I don't think so. Most people who let Jesus into their hearts still disagree on a whole lot of issues.

The most convincing argument for Jesus being a homophobe I've seen in this thread so far is the
marriage between man and woman argument, and even that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

There are a lot of things Jesus never spoke of directly, and we can't begin to assume what his
position on all these issues were. Consider the fact that Jesus ever only answered direct
questions. Perhaps in those homophobic times, people just never thought to ask the question. Also
consider the fact that the bible has been put together by men a few hundred years after the fact.
If they were homophobes, accepting second hand accounts from Paul, it's not unlikely they
would have left out anything that hints at the idea of Jesus accepting homosexuality.

The fact remains that Jesus to our knowledge never explicitly addressed the issue of
homosexuality, and I can only draw the conclusion that it wasn't a big issue for him. Now, what
God whom fail to give us his opinion on something is going to punish people for being the way
they are by nature? Doesn't sound at all like the fair and loving God Jesus spoke of, does it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

I quite understand that Jesus is talking in the context of divorce. But he steps quite beyond the moral exhortation 'a married man and woman should not divorce'. He quite explicitly says that mankind was created man and woman entirely for the purpose of marriage. This clearly excludes the possibility of marriage between a man and a man -- otherwi ...[text shortened]... , i.e., a woman. Jesus presented the only two options within the context given.

Amazing what mental gymnastics you need to use. Jesus says God made mankind man and female so that they could marry and become one flesh. This is not a statement only applicable to or restricted to heterosexuals. You can test this yourself. Can you say 'In regard to heterosexuals, God made mankind male and female so that they could marry' and 'in regard to homosexuals, God did not make mankind male and female so that they could marry'? To assert these two statements results in an a contradiction since whether God made mankind male and female so that they could marry is true or false irrespective of whether the speaker is addressing homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Amazing what mental gymnastics you need to use. Jesus says God made mankind man and female so that they could marry and become one flesh. This is not a statement only applicable to or restricted to heterosexuals. You can test this yourself. Can you say 'In regard to heterosexuals, God made mankind male and female so that they could marry' and 'in regard to ...[text shortened]... rue or false irrespective of whether the speaker is addressing homosexuals or heterosexuals.

The fact that God not only makes heterosexual men and women is indisputable. There are
homosexuals, there always has been homosexuals and it's not a personal choice as it is an
inherent trait of their very identities. If you dispute this, you're saying that all the people out there
who feel nothing for their opposite sex are somehow lying, which I find very hard to believe. Why
would anyone lie about something that traditionally puts him/her on the edge of society? No, it's
obvious that God (from a Christian perspective) created, and keeps creating homosexuals.

Why? And what's his opinion on them?

First God create homosexuals, decide he doesn't like them and removes everyone (homosexuals
and others alike) from the face of the earth. But then he opens up the factory again, and this time
he keeps quiet about it.

What does this tell us?