Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?

[cool_name123]

Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post


So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[Strider324]

ThePainefulTruth scribed:

AIDS, for one thing.

AIDs for one thing, what? AIDs doesn't follow from just anal sex. Millions in Africa have contracted the disease from various methods, including the 'natural' activity of vaginal intercourse.

Anal tearing in a high bacteria environment and weakening of the sphincter as well.

Vaginal tearing is no less problematic for women. There are more dangerous bacteria and viruses found in the mouth than the rectum. Weakening of the sphincter is not materially different from the incontinence caused by natural aging. Further, exercise mitigates a number of health issues, anal musclulature being just one.

Only 5-10%

According to polls, fully 46% of American women have engaged in anal sex. Your opinion is horribly at odds with reality.

http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dat ... statistics

and if it's intermixed with vaginal sex, the chance for disease skyrockets.

And that's why educated people don't engage in this intermixing of activities. I'm not sure why you assume most people are stupid.

Don't call it unnatural if you don't want to, but it's still dangerous and dumb.

Your opinion seems more informed by ignorance than intelligence. Not sure who the real 'dumb' people are here.

BTW, I think most animal homosexuality is bisexual, and as with human bisexuality, sex is largely used as a tool for power or dominance.

Which is completely unsupported by any data, but thanx for your 'thoughts'.

[ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth scribed:

AIDS, for one thing.

AIDs for one thing, what? AIDs doesn't follow from just anal sex. Millions in Africa have contracted the disease from various methods, including the 'natural' activity of vaginal intercourse.

I know, but it's much less commonly transmitted that way. Anal sex and shared needles are far and away the most common means. You CAN even get it from kissing, despite what the PC crowd will tell you, but it is rare. I don't think we can say that AIDS started with anal sex, but it did start in the US (World?) with homosexual men, so it's very likely.

Anal tearing in a high bacteria environment and weakening of the sphincter as well.

Vaginal tearing is no less problematic for women. There are more dangerous bacteria and viruses found in the mouth than the rectum. Weakening of the sphincter is not materially different from the incontinence caused by natural aging. Further, exercise mitigates a number of health issues, anal musclulature being just one.

Look at what you're saying. It causes what happens to old people in young people. And vaginal tearing is less problematic. Even lubricants fail to provide significant protection for anal sex.

Only 5-10%

According to polls, fully 46% of American women have engaged in anal sex. Your opinion is horribly at odds with reality.

Polls? But you do have a point that the findings of studies vary widely. It's also a subject, like global warming, that is very vulnerable to agenda bias. GIGO.

http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dat ... statistics

and if it's intermixed with vaginal sex, the chance for disease skyrockets.

And that's why educated people don't engage in this intermixing of activities. I'm not sure why you assume most people are stupid.

Look at all the people who get pregnant who didn't plan to. People do stupid stuff, especially when having sex.

Don't call it unnatural if you don't want to, but it's still dangerous and dumb.

Your opinion seems more informed by ignorance than intelligence. Not sure who the real 'dumb' people are here.

Yet you just called something stupid.

BTW, I think most animal homosexuality is bisexual, and as with human bisexuality, sex is largely used as a tool for power or dominance.

Which is completely unsupported by any data, but thanx for your 'thoughts'.

[/quote]

"Therefore, homosexual behavior presents a major challenge for those who hold that Darwinism is the great general theory to be applied with equal success in biology as well in social sciences. The same-sex activity can be found among
animals of all kinds. However, based on the available literature and data, it is more likely that what looks like homosexual behavior may be more correctly classified as infantile play, poor discrimination or dominance-submission behavior."

Nonhuman Primates Homosexual Behavior:
A Critical Review of Literature--Jelena Čvorović, 2006

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 8 by help3434]

"What choice and decision?"

The choice and decision to accept Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead.

"What about people that have never read that verse?"

It depends on the person and their circumstance. A few examples are necessary to illustrate the understanding.

If a person has never read the verse, but has heard it spoken, then it is the same as if they have read the verse.

If a person is a child or mentally handicapped and unable to comprehend, then Romans 5:13 applies:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

If a person has committed a sin, but they are truly ignorant of knowing that it was a sin...then it is not imputed. In this way, God is Gracious in a way that is totally opposite of the American System of law which declares that one is guilty of the law even if they do not know the law exists.

Apply liberally.

If a person asks God for forgiveness and to save them in whatever way that is unknown to them, and they had never had the chance to hear the Gospel, and search for salvation, and did not ever have it revealed to them that Jesus was the way, by resurrection....but they relied upon God and His unknown way to salvation...then it is conceivable that they might be saved in their ignorance. I wouldn't put a stamp of gaurantee on that, but it might be possible. But I would argue that if such a man existed on Earth....God would reveal His Word to that man through a supernatural mean (perhaps an angel, or a Bible supernaturally appearing in front of the man).

Such an extreme set of circumstances hardly occurs here. And for the most part, those who sin...know what their sin was...and they do not ask God for salvation from it. They do not seek the scriptures, even when it is in plain sight. And therefore, they are guilty and Romans 5:13 does not apply to them. Romans 5:13 is not a copout for Universalism. It is a standard of God's Grace.

"What about people who have read it but don't believe it because there is no evidence for it and because it is illogical and unjust? Who don't believe it because there is no Spirit to tell them it is true?"

Assuming they do not believe in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead: According to all of the things that I have thus spoken on this thread...they are not saved. I hope you have not assumed that the things I have spoken somehow suggest that such people are saved.

Assuming they do believe in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead: According to all of the things that I have thus spoken on this thread...they are saved. I hope you have not assumed that the things I have spoken somehow suggests that more is required of people to be saved than their belief in Jesus as Romans 10:9 ascribes. John 12:44-48 is very clear that those who believe in Jesus, but do not believe the things He says....are still saved.

"A significant part of the Bible are about those things, but those are irrelevant because of a few passages that Paul wrote?"

You are speaking to a man who has not declared that those portions of the Bible are irrelevant. I specifically stated "irrelevant to salvation doctrine." I did not state "irrelevant in general." They are very relevant, as my post acknowledged. All of those portions about repentance, traditions, law....are all very relevant. They simply are not relevant *to salvation doctrine* for they do not declare such things must be done in order to be saved. Not even those passages declare it. So then, nothing is made irrelevant outside of the place from which it was put.

"If salvation is the most important thing, then why are the things that are relevant to salvation only a tiny part of the Bible? "

I do not hold the position that the things that are relevant to salvation are only a tiny part of the Bible. Perhaps you have assumed this of me. The entire Bible is chalk full of describing itself as salvation-related. That does not mean anything was added unto salvation doctrine than simply believing Romans 10:9. Even the Bible itself does not add unto salvation doctrine anything more than this...in all of its scriptures.

"What are your proofs that Romans 10:9 should supersede Matthew 7:21?"

I have not argued that Romans 10:9 should supersede Matthew 7:21. I do not believe Romans 10:9 supersedes Matthew 7:21, nor do I believe that Matthew 7:21 supersedes Romans 10:9. I believe they work together without contradiction. Perhaps the heart of your doctrinal question is that you feel Romans 10:9 and Matthew 7:21 contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive? This, then, means you believe scripture contradicts itself. But I do not believe there is a contradiction here.

Please note:

Matthew 7:21 does not say "Not everyone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

And Romans 10: 9 does not say "Everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into heaven."

So, I think you have made an assumption that I do not make. Namely, you have made the assumption that "Everyone who says Lord, Lord" is somehow a statement that is equivocal to "Believe in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead."

I do not make that equivocation. But it appears that you do.

Thus, in my doctrinal position, I find no contradiction which requires one scripture to supersede the other.

"Why do you think confessing your mouth is sufficient for salvation when according to Matthew Jesus says that not everyone who says "Lord Lord" will be saved?"

Because Romans 10:9 declares that it is sufficient, and Matthew 7:21 does not say "belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead" is not sufficient.

So to be clear:

I believe that belief that Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead is fully sufficient to obtain salvation.

I believe that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved.

And there is no contradiction in these two sayings.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

P.S. If you need an example to verify this, take a look at Islam. Islam has billions of followers who say to God "Lord, Lord" (for they believe in One Almighty Creator God)...but they deny the resurrection of Jesus, and that He is Savior.

[ThePainefulTruth]

P.S. If you need an example to verify this, take a look at Islam. Islam has billions of followers who say to God "Lord, Lord" (for they believe in One Almighty Creator God)...but they deny the resurrection of Jesus, and that He is Savior.

Well, they did get something right after all.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 14 by ThePainefulTruth]

I consider it a pity that they (Muslims) do not recognize the need for a ransom for their salvation. They get caught on this point because they believe it is possible to outweigh their sin with good deeds on the balance.

Catholics have a similar problem in feeling good deeds need to outweigh sin, but Catholics are saved because they believe Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead. So, though they have an error of doctrine, God's Grace covers their error because the ransom still applies to them, whereas with Muslims who reject Jesus...they rejected the ransom so their error leads to condemnation.

It is very intriguing to always ponder how far God's Grace goes. It extends much further than our own doctrines would ever allow. It is to His Glory that such an extension of Grace is made for us.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 14 by ThePainefulTruth]

I consider it a pity that they (Muslims) do not recognize the need for a ransom for their salvation. They get caught on this point because they believe it is possible to outweigh their sin with good deeds on the balance.

Catholics have a similar problem in feeling good deeds need to outweigh sin, but Catholics are saved because they believe Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead. So, though they have an error of doctrine, God's Grace covers their error because the ransom still applies to them, whereas with Muslims who reject Jesus...they rejected the ransom so their error leads to condemnation.

It is very intriguing to always ponder how far God's Grace goes. It extends much further than our own doctrines would ever allow. It is to His Glory that such an extension of Grace is made for us.

No one, not even God can die as a substitute for anyone not choosing to repent. God sacrificing It's own (human) son as a substitute is nothing but pagan human sacrifice. Re: Mithras. But I know, for most people, I'm ](*,)

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 16 by ThePainefulTruth]

"No one, not even God can die as a substitute for anyone not choosing to repent."

Is this your personal philosophy or something you can prove with scripture?

Because scripture says God died as a substitute for all sin, even of unbelievers, even for the unrepentant.

So I guess the reason I ask you if you can prove this statement with scripture...is to show you that scripture does not make this claim, though you do.

Or are you speaking as an atheist, who does not consider scripture to be valid?

In that case, this discussion needs to go to an different level of logic which is not relevant to this particular thread. Infact, this means you are likely trolling because regardless of whether you believe in God or not...it is not relevant to this topic.

And if that is the case, then the most important thing I can say to you to help you understand who you are speaking to is the following:

I have seen angels. I have been taken to heaven. It was not a dream. It was very real, and my soul was pulled out of my body. Other people, completely random strangers, have witnessed the angel anoint me without me expecting it to occur at all. Those random strangers were doctors and nurses in the hospital where I worked.

I have seen the Spirit of God. I have bathed in the river of His Spirit. It is not a matter of belief to me any longer (though initially my belief was relatively blind, when I was younger) but a matter of "I have tasted, touched, and felt." I have experienced him with my senses.

I understand that your general response to such a statement is disbelief. I cannot force you to believe my statement, and you will likely argue some sort of "if you cannot reproduce it or show it to me, then you cannot prove it" type of response. And it is not my goal to prove it to you. It is only my goal to explain to you that it has been proven to me. And what has been proven to me is not something that I can hand over, and prove to you. All I can do is testify of it.

I tell you all of this for one main reason: Somewhere in your next response...you will attempt to argue your points from a heart that believes it can cause doubt in a person who has beliefs different than yours because you think that what they believe is of equally-proven standing to what you believe (whatever it is that you believe). But how can a person who has actually met God be caused to doubt that God exists if that person has truly met God? You may disbelieve that I have met God. But you cannot cause me to doubt that I have met God. Thus, all things that you attempt to say to a man who has truly met God...will lack any ability to gain leverage in discussion.

In the end this will cause grief to you, for it will either cause you to doubt your own beliefs, or it will cause you to resent my testimony, and perhaps, depending on the nature of your heart, hate any person like me who has a testimony like mine.

May God bless you with revelation.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 16 by ThePainefulTruth]

"No one, not even God can die as a substitute for anyone not choosing to repent."

Is this your personal philosophy or something you can prove with scripture?

I've come to hate that word. It's men crowning themselves with a halo and pompously proclaiming what they've written to be the holy "Word of God". It's nothing but the arrogance of a few used to manipulate others. I don't know which is worse, being the manipulator, or the manipulated who turn a blind eye. Is it worse to lie to others, or to one's self? It's just so much easier to turn off than to live with the doubt. I guess the manipulators are the evil ones, but the manipulated have to live with their own cowardice, and their abetting of evil.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 18 by ThePainefulTruth]

"I've come to hate that word. It's men crowning themselves with a halo and pompously proclaiming what they've written to be the holy "Word of God"."

That is an assumption and a claim which you cannot verify for you were not at those particular events. I caution you to recognize the truth of that reality within yourself.

"It's nothing but the arrogance of a few used to manipulate others."

Please explain how loving one's enemy is arrogant manipulation of others.

Also, please explain how a free gift from God which requires no keeping of traditions, requires no good works, requires no repentance, requires no other beliefs except to believe Jesus is God and Savior who rose from the dead....to be somehow manipulative of others, when nothing is being asked of them in exchange for that salvation?

Or have you made a prejudiced claim due to the hatred which you admit that you have?

Which came first? Your hatred of God, causing you to argue that scripture is manipulative of others in exchange for their salvation? Or that you had no opinion of God until you read scripture and found it to be manipulative? Because I assure you, and you can test me on this, that scripture is not manipulative towards people regarding the gift of salvation. There is nothing manipulative about it. It is free. It is not "Free and then costs you everything." It is "Free and will cost you nothing." If you doubt me, then test me, and I will show you.

"Is it worse to lie to others, or to one's self?"

It is worse to lie to one's self. For if you lie to yourself, then how can you preach anything but lies to others, even without knowing it?

I have seen the angels. I have swum in the river of God. I have seen myself partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life. If I were to deny these things, then I would be lying to myself *and* to you. Literally. In the senses. Not a dream. Not the imagination. But in a reality far more alive and real than the physical world as you know it.

"It's just so much easier to turn off than to live with the doubt."

Even if you turn off...you still live in doubt. So perhaps you have lied to yourself in thinking that turning off means not having to live in doubt.

"I guess the manipulators are the evil ones, but the manipulated have to live with their own cowardice, and their abetting of evil."

Do not base the validity of a book upon the people who believe it. When you do, it is evidence that you have not taken sufficient time to read it yourself to the full extent that it might actually be true. Perhaps you have read it, I cannot know. Perhaps you have read little, or perhaps you have read much. But whether you have read much or little of it...you most certainly have not read it with the presumption that it might actually be true. Because if you had...then you would recognize that your claims against it are false.

May God bless you with revelation.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 18 by ThePainefulTruth]

"I've come to hate that word. It's men crowning themselves with a halo and pompously proclaiming what they've written to be the holy "Word of God"."

That is an assumption and a claim which you cannot verify for you were not at those particular events. I caution you to recognize the truth of that reality within yourself.

The universe was either created by God or came into existence spontaneously. The burden of proof, or even to ask that we put our faith in one idea or the other as the Truth, is on whoever claims to possess the certain answer or body of hard evidence. If you say believe because I say, or because Moses or Jesus or whoever said, it's nothing more than asking us to throw our (God?)-given reason and free will out the window.

There isn't the first bit of evidence for any supernatural event in the Bible (or the universe for that matter) other than hearsay.

"It's nothing but the arrogance of a few used to manipulate others."

Please explain how loving one's enemy is arrogant manipulation of others.

Manipulating anyone with fear and superstition isn't love. It's just mean and self-serving demagoguery.

It's obvious you only want to go off on tangents, chase after red herrings and set up straw men, so I won't be responding to any more of them.