Zone1 Why Does God Even Hate Homosexuality?

[Foxfyre]

As believers we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us His Word. That gives us not only the confidence, but the right and authority under G-d to proclaim His Word to a hurting and sin infested world.

When I am teaching and someone wants to make a point about how the Holy Spirit/the Christ/God does things, I suggest we shouldn't ever put God in a box and assume there is only one right way to do anything.

I illustrate with the lessons of the New Testament and Jesus healing the blind.

Matthew 20:30-34: Jesus touches the eyes of two blind men and they are healed.

Mark 8:22-25: Jesus spit on the blind man's eyes, laid hands on him and the man was healed.

Mark 10:46-52: Jesus sent the blind man on his way telling him his faith had made him well.

John 9:1-7: Jesus put mud on the eyes of the blind man and told him to go wash in the pool of Siloam and he would be healed.

Now if one person reads one of those accounts and not the others, and another reads another account etc., we could easily have the 'touch-ites' 'speak-ites' 'spit-ites' and 'mud-ites' arguing over how Jesus heals the blind. God's ways are not for us to dictate, however, and we aren't always to know why He does things the way He does.

Likewise to pull the six short references to homosexuality in the Bible out as the "Law" and ignore all other other passages of how we are to regard the "Law" I personally believe does the Scriptures a great disservice. "Proof texting" will almost always get the full message wrong.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

My point was that those laws were temporary, not eternal

I understand your point.
My point is God does not give rules without reason. The belief you reference comes from Protestantism who carried it over from Catholicism.

The laws concerning clean and unclean meats is for anyone who follows God. Pork and rabbit and squirrel and bats are not fit for human consumption. God never allowed us to eat any of these creatures. He permitted "us" to eat other things, but not these

All the Protestant arguments to try to justify eating every vile thing is easily refuted.

Jesus never did. The apostles never did. And the prophets never did.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand your point.
My point is God does not give rules without reason. The belief you reference comes from Protestantism who carried it over from Catholicism.

The laws concerning clean and unclean meats is for anyone who follows God. Pork and rabbit and squirrel and bats are not fit for human consumption. God never allowed us to eat any of these creatures. He permitted "us" to eat other things, but not these

All the Protestant arguments to try to justify eating every vile thing is easily refuted.

Jesus never did. The apostles never did. And the prophets never did.

Are you sure? Revisit Mark Chapter 7.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Are you sure? Revisit Mark Chapter 7.

Yes, I'm sure. Start a topic about clean and unclean meats and we'll discuss it not in this thread though

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I'm sure. Start a topic about clean and unclean meats and we'll discuss it not in this thread though

No thank you. My kitchen is something of a science lab because I cook for some very delicate dietary needs as well as cultural taboos and individual dislikes. I'm pretty sure I know my nutrition pretty well.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

No thank you. My kitchen is something of a science lab because I cook for some very delicate dietary needs as well as cultural taboos and individual dislikes. I'm pretty sure I know my nutrition pretty well.

Okay, but you asked. The short version is that chapter is addressing food offered to idols, not the Torah commandments about unclean meats. Pig is not "food" in the scriptures

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, but you asked. The short version is that chapter is addressing food offered to idols, not the Torah commandments about unclean meats. Pig is not "food" in the scriptures

No because then it was too often contaminated with dangerous parasites that are all but eliminated in developed countries now. Certainly properly handled and cooked pork has become one of the safest animal proteins and pork tenderloin and pork loin roasts are listed among the top three most nutritious meats right after skinless turkey breast and chicken breast.

I cannot believe that God would count those who eat it these days as sinning when they eat it. At the same time I respect those whose religious beliefs omit pork--I have some of those at my kitchen table from time to time--and out of courtesy I do not offer them pork.

 

[Road Runner]

Show me anyone has suggested making pedophilia legal.

Let's see first they started normalizing the LGBT agenda in schools and in front of kids, second of all it was the drag queens,.. it's getting closer and closer to normalizing pedophilia. Btw, how did we get onto a discussion about pork?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's see first they started normalizing the LGBT agenda in schools and in front of kids, second of all it was the drag queens,.. it's getting closer and closer to normalizing pedophilia. Btw, how did we get onto a discussion about pork?

It all ties together. The topic is whether God hates homosexuality which of course goes straight to the six brief Biblical references and is a question of whether it was a cultural taboo or specifically a law that God dictated. . .

and. . .

The fact that most Christians and even most Jews do not follow the dietary restrictions or many other laws of the Old Testament. And the New Testament was written most by Jews for the education of Jews so far as they knew at the time those manuscripts were written.

There will always be controversy when people pick and choose which of the laws were 'cultural' or 'custom' and which were edicts of God when we choose what laws are applicable for those of us in the 21st Century.

I find it easiest to identify sin as whatever harms us and/or others now or future generations and such sin can be that of commission or omission. Love God and refrain from such sin as much as is humanly possible and we don't have to worry about a long list of laws of whatever nature.

 

[Blues Man]

You claimed I disapproved of their choice. Where did I disapprove of their choice? (Because this thread has also been about approving choice.)

you said

I have a huge problem with society telling homosexuals, "Oh, it is fine--go for it if it feels right." No!

sure sounds like disapproval to me

 

[Blues Man]

How it is you are so sure of who will and will not be in Heaven? I have a relationship with a Savior who promises me eternal life. What do you have that makes you so certain?

I'm not but you certainly seem to think you are.

IMO there is no such thing as heaven

 

[Blues Man]

Let's see first they started normalizing the LGBT agenda in schools and in front of kids, second of all it was the drag queens,.. it's getting closer and closer to normalizing pedophilia. Btw, how did we get onto a discussion about pork?

So you can't show me anything that says people want to make pedophilia legal

 

[Meriweather]

sure sounds like disapproval to me

Disapproval of society, not of homosexuals.

 

[Blues Man]

Disapproval of society, not of homosexuals.

You disapprove of a society that accepts homosexuals but you accept homosexuals and their lifestyles?

Cognitive dissonance?

 

[Meriweather]

You disapprove of a society that accepts homosexuals but you accept homosexuals and their lifestyles?

Cognitive dissonance?

I disapprove of society--particularly government--giving its approval to intensely personal issues. Divorce, abortion, homosexuality, transgenders, etc. No public entity should usurp the authority of the individual. I've quoted the study before, where if people in authority authorize and urge someone to hurt someone because it is really alright, more than two-thirds of individuals will take authority at its word. This means when authority tells society, "It is alright", two-thirds of society will automatically accept that it is, indeed, right.

Now, if an individual gives thought to what they will have and what they will lose for any such personal decisions (openly homosexual, divorce, abortion, etc.) without outside influence, then other individuals need to respect this freedom. The trouble with government is that it seldom--if ever--addresses the loss of government decisions. Government plows ahead with an arrogance that whatever government decides is right WILL BE RIGHT--even when it is not.

Once again, you demonstrate why I am constantly making the decision to not bother to interact with you. Instead of even attempting to understand my point, you jump to your own conclusion about me. You are forever making the discussion about me. "Cognitive dissonance?" indeed. You make up someone in your own mind--and who you make up, IS.NOT.ME. Stop it. This is your last chance. One more time, and I will always skip over any discussion with you. Stick to the topic, and stop trying to turn me into something/someone I am not. So, in the future, look over your post. Delete any personal remarks. Stick to the topic.

 

[Rumpole]

It doesn't change the fact that he said it, and I heard him say it.

And, I, in fact, met Little Richard in the lobby of the Hyatt Hotel on Sunset Blvd, 1977, (or thereabouts, my memory is faulty) and he appeared to be as gay then, as he had been for most of his public life, given his manner of dress, makeup, and mannerisms (thus a fair characterization which is consistent with his own admissions). I have no problem with that fact, given that I lived amongst one of the larger gay populations in America, that of West Hollywood (second only to the Castro District in San Francisco).

 

[miketx]

And, I, in fact, met Little Richard in the lobby of the Hyatt Hotel on Sunset Blvd, 1977, (or thereabouts, my memory is faulty) and he appeared to be as gay then, as he had been for most of his public life, given his manner of dress, makeup, and mannerisms (thus a fair characterization which is consistent with his own admissions). I have no problem with that fact, given that I lived amongst one of the larger gay populations in America, that of West Hollywood (second only to the Castro District in San Francisco).

It's ok that you're gay. Most leftists are.

 

[Rumpole]

It's ok that you're gay. Most leftists are.

You know the old saying about making assumptions? google it.

 

[miketx]

You know the old saying about making assumptions? google it.

Google it yourself fairy.

 

[Blues Man]

I disapprove of society--particularly government--giving its approval to intensely personal issues. Divorce, abortion, homosexuality, transgenders, etc. No public entity should usurp the authority of the individual. I've quoted the study before, where if people in authority authorize and urge someone to hurt someone because it is really alright, more than two-thirds of individuals will take authority at its word. This means when authority tells society, "It is alright", two-thirds of society will automatically accept that it is, indeed, right.

Now, if an individual gives thought to what they will have and what they will lose for any such personal decisions (openly homosexual, divorce, abortion, etc.) without outside influence, then other individuals need to respect this freedom. The trouble with government is that it seldom--if ever--addresses the loss of government decisions. Government plows ahead with an arrogance that whatever government decides is right WILL BE RIGHT--even when it is not.

Once again, you demonstrate why I am constantly making the decision to not bother to interact with you. Instead of even attempting to understand my point, you jump to your own conclusion about me. You are forever making the discussion about me. "Cognitive dissonance?" indeed. You make up someone in your own mind--and who you make up, IS.NOT.ME. Stop it. This is your last chance. One more time, and I will always skip over any discussion with you. Stick to the topic, and stop trying to turn me into something/someone I am not. So, in the future, look over your post. Delete any personal remarks. Stick to the topic.

You mean personal things like marriage? Government gives its approval to heterosexual marriage and had passed many laws regarding and protecting it. Are you telling me you disapprove of these laws?

And I'm not turning you into anything. I am asking you questions and if I see a contradiction I will ask you about that.

I see a contradiction in your words.

You disapprove of a society tells homosexuals that if their relationships make them happy that they should pursue them and yet in the same breath you say that you accept homosexuals and their choices.

That is a contradiction.