 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 11/27/2003 4:15 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Does God have an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals?
Consider the following verses of Scripture in your answer . . . if so desired?
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Jdg 19:22 [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
1Ki 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: [and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/27/2003 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Is God sinophobic...your question presupposes that God is wrong in his attitude...therefore since I consider all of God's actions holy I refuse to answer based on the fact that I consider your question offensive...
Plus your question shows just as some Christians are overly concerned with homosexuality as a sin, others are overly concerned about being seen as homophobic. Neither side is correct; homosexuality as a sin is well estabilished in scripture. But it is not given the attention that many Christians seem to want to given it today. However, the word homophobic is a damning word today. Wouldn't want to be that!
Cmon, DLW, why haven't you answered this question? It is your favorite subject ! | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/27/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Happy Thanksgiving to Honor-dude and all...
quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Is God sinophobic...your question presupposes that God is wrong in his attitude...therefore since I consider all of God's actions holy I refuse to answer based on the fact that I consider your question offensive...
I agree that juxtaposing God with homophobia is a bit of a stretch.
quote:
Plus your question shows just as some Christians are overly concerned with homosexuality as a sin, others are overly concerned about being seen as homophobic. Neither side is correct; homosexuality as a sin is well estabilished in scripture. But it is not given the attention that many Christians seem to want to given it today. However, the word homophobic is a damning word today. Wouldn't want to be that!
Of course, you tend to define homosexuality different from how others define it, which is part of the source of the conflict. We have different beliefs about the appropriate facts/understandings of homosexuality and, as such, tend to argue past each other.
quote:
Cmon, DLW, why haven't you answered this question? It is your favorite subject!
HonorDude, seeking a detente in the Cultural/Religious Wars is my favorite subject, or what I feel called to write about with my "free-time".
As for the question, I voted no and here is why. The modern-day conception and understanding of homosexuality is distinct from what prevailed during biblical times. One does not need be a constitutional homosexual to engage in homosexual acts. Such acts can also be an act of brutal expression of power. A man saying to another man that to him the other is a woman, or nothing.
Also, presumably if I can be titillated by oral sex with a female the same may be true with a male, despite the fact that the sight of the male body doesn't titillate me as the sight of the female body does.
So the question comes down to one of interpretation and the dangers of us projecting our modern understandings into the text, instead of endeavoring to understand what it meant to its original audience and then exegeting it to struggle over how Paul would have dealt with the fact of constitutional homosexuality.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 12/2/2003 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim: Does God have an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals?
Jim: God is the one who created sex, so He is the one who makes the rules.
DLW: I agree that juxtaposing God with homophobia is a bit of a stretch.
Jim: I strongly agree!
DLW: Of course, you tend to define homosexuality different from how others define it, which is part of the source of the conflict. We have different beliefs about the appropriate facts/understandings of homosexuality and, as such, tend to argue past each other.
Jim: The facts about homosexuality among other forms of sexual immorality are presented to us by God in the verses that Tim posted.
DLW: As for the question, I voted no and here is why. The modern-day conception and understanding of homosexuality is distinct from what prevailed during biblical times
Jim: How? Males had sex with males back then, and males have sex with males today. How is that in the context of homosexuality and the difference of time distinct?
DLW: So the question comes down to one of interpretation and the dangers of us projecting our modern understandings into the text, instead of endeavoring to understand what it meant to its original audience and then exegeting it to struggle over how Paul would have dealt with the fact of constitutional homosexuality.
Jim: It is pretty clear from the bible regarding the interpretation, it's wrong. And our modern day understanding of males having sex with males, or females with females for that matter is the same as it was back then as I already said, so there is no projection there. If there is any projection going on it is with you projecting that Paul didn't have all the "facts" about males having sex with males and females having sex with females. Besides, Paul was not the one that actually came up with the material he wrote in the first place. It was God.
<><
Jim
Every word of God is flawless. Prov 30:5
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/3/2003 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jim_Mottl
DLW: Of course, you tend to define homosexuality different from how others define it, which is part of the source of the conflict. We have different beliefs about the appropriate facts/understandings of homosexuality and, as such, tend to argue past each other.
Jim: The facts about homosexuality among other forms of sexual immorality are presented to us by God in the verses that Tim posted.
No, we must rely upon both natural and revealed truths to determine "the facts". For we see but in part...
quote:
DLW: As for the question, I voted no and here is why. The modern-day conception and understanding of homosexuality is distinct from what prevailed during biblical times
Jim: How? Males had sex with males back then, and males have sex with males today. How is that in the context of homosexuality and the difference of time distinct?
A male can coerce another male into sex as a means of humiliation, exertion of authority over the other, graphically saying that to me you are a woman, or nothing.
The notion that one's sexual orientation makes it so that you are titillated by the sight of people of the same sex is different. We now know that one's sexual orientation is most likely strongly determined by the hormonal balance that is formed in our brains when we are fetuses. For a very small subset of the population, a hormonal balance is formed that is contrary to their genetics, whether they are XY or XX.
quote:
DLW: So the question comes down to one of interpretation and the dangers of us projecting our modern understandings into the text, instead of endeavoring to understand what it meant to its original audience and then exegeting it to struggle over how Paul would have dealt with the fact of constitutional homosexuality.
Jim: It is pretty clear from the bible regarding the interpretation, it's wrong. And our modern day understanding of males having sex with males, or females with females for that matter is the same as it was back then as I already said, so there is no projection there. If there is any projection going on it is with you projecting that Paul didn't have all the "facts" about males having sex with males and females having sex with females. Besides, Paul was not the one that actually came up with the material he wrote in the first place. It was God.
I'm sorry, as with Galileo and the Copernican heliocentric understanding of the universe, we do learn more about out the nature of the universe that we live in than was known during Biblical times. To understand the Bible, we must also understand as much as possible about Biblical times. It is possible for understanding of the difficulties associated with the development of our sexualities better than was understood then.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 12/3/2003 7:01 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: No, we must rely upon both natural and revealed truths to determine "the facts". For we see but in part...
Jim: I definitely think that the bible shows how God feels about it which was basically Tim's question. Do you agree with that? Do you agree regardless of the "facts" that God isn't happy about it? You say we must rely on something other that God's word because we see but in part. What are the natural and revealed truths we are to rely on?
DLW: A male can coerce another male into sex as a means of humiliation, exertion of authority over the other, graphically saying that to me you are a woman, or nothing.
Jim: What do you mean by this? I mean I understand what you are saying, but do you mean that this is why the prohibition was created? In your mind, is this what God is so angry about?
DLW: The notion that one's sexual orientation makes it so that you are titillated by the sight of people of the same sex is different. We now know that one's sexual orientation is most likely strongly determined by the hormonal balance that is formed in our brains when we are fetuses. For a very small subset of the population, a hormonal balance is formed that is contrary to their genetics, whether they are XY or XX.
Jim: And this is what they did not understand, right? So then these would be part of "the facts" that they were not aware of in bible times, right?
<><
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 12/3/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: I'm sorry, as with Galileo and the Copernican heliocentric understanding of the universe, we do learn more about out the nature of the universe that we live in than was known during Biblical times. To understand the Bible, we must also understand as much as possible about Biblical times. It is possible for understanding of the difficulties associated with the development of our sexualities better than was understood then.
Jim: I forgot to comment on this. Yes I would agree that they did not know much about the universe back then, and that we have come to understand much about how it is put together. Even though the principle is the same, it is on a differnt level than what we are talking about specifically because there is a law against homosexuality, but in the creation account we are just being told about how the universe came about minus "the facts". There is no prohibition for the universe. In what scientists have discovered about the creation, gives that feeling of complete awe about our creator and the creation account.
As for homosexuality and the law against it, when I read your comments, I feel you are trying to dismiss it based on that fact that not much was known. That somehow now, we know more and are better to assess what God really meant.
So there is a difference there, David, between taking what God has said and verifying it by the means you claim we need to understand it, and taking what God has said and dismissing it with the same means by which you claim we need to understand it. Does that make sense? I look forward to your response.
<><
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/4/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jim_Mottl
DLW: No, we must rely upon both natural and revealed truths to determine "the facts". For we see but in part...
Jim: I definitely think that the bible shows how God feels about it which was basically Tim's question. Do you agree with that? Do you agree regardless of the "facts" that God isn't happy about it? You say we must rely on something other that God's word because we see but in part. What are the natural and revealed truths we are to rely on?
We can understand now what leads to a male being titillated by the sight of other male flesh and the same for females. We understand that it is difficult to change these desires.
Now, I do believe that God sees the homosexual as he sees the person born blind at birth. I myself was born with a hole in my heart and I didn't have an alternative heart-disorder. My heart was other than its intended form. I view the hormonal balance that forms in the brain of the fetus in similar terms.
here is a collection of articles...
http://www.transsexuality.info/db/entry336.php
quote:
DLW: A male can coerce another male into sex as a means of humiliation, exertion of authority over the other, graphically saying that to me you are a woman, or nothing.
Jim: What do you mean by this? I mean I understand what you are saying, but do you mean that this is why the prohibition was created? In your mind, is this what God is so angry about?
Homosexuality is a rather rare occurrence and I'm betting its not historically invariant, ie the percentage of homosexuals can change over time and place. The percentage went up in Germany among people who were in the womb during the WWII bombings. That is how Gunter Dorner was first clued into the role of fetal hormones in the determination of sexual orientation.
And so I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the homosexual acts condemned in the Bible were of a volitional sort stemming from the pagan culture of the Roman Empire and most of the surrounding cultures of the time.
At any rate, I am strongly opposed to the very radical changes that gay-rights activists often prescribe towards the social mores that should govern our sexuality.
I believe that bisexuals should not engage in any homosexual acts. And that constitutional homosexuals who lack the gift of celibacy should enter into a long-term monogamous relationship that emulates the Christian ideal of marriage in all other respects.
And I personally believe that they should abstain from anal sex since that clearly falls under the homosexual acts prohibited in the Bible and is generally unsafe for males.
quote:
DLW: The notion that one's sexual orientation makes it so that you are titillated by the sight of people of the same sex is different. We now know that one's sexual orientation is most likely strongly determined by the hormonal balance that is formed in our brains when we are fetuses. For a very small subset of the population, a hormonal balance is formed that is contrary to their genetics, whether they are XY or XX.
Jim: And this is what they did not understand, right? So then these would be part of "the facts" that they were not aware of in bible times, right?
Yes, these are part of the scientific facts that we understand now and must take into account in terms of how we deal with homosexuals as a Church.
quote:
DLW: I'm sorry, as with Galileo and the Copernican heliocentric understanding of the universe, we do learn more about out the nature of the universe that we live in than was known during Biblical times. To understand the Bible, we must also understand as much as possible about Biblical times. It is possible for understanding of the difficulties associated with the development of our sexualities better than was understood then.
Jim: I forgot to comment on this. Yes I would agree that they did not know much about the universe back then, and that we have come to understand much about how it is put together. Even though the principle is the same, it is on a differnt level than what we are talking about specifically because there is a law against homosexuality, but in the creation account we are just being told about how the universe came about minus "the facts". There is no prohibition for the universe. In what scientists have discovered about the creation, gives that feeling of complete awe about our creator and the creation account.
The modern-day concept of homosexuality was not present in Biblical times and so the better translation of the Bible is "homosexual acts" not homosexuality.
quote:
Jim:As for homosexuality and the law against it, when I read your comments, I feel you are trying to dismiss it based on that fact that not much was known. That somehow now, we know more and are better to assess what God really meant.
So there is a difference there, David, between taking what God has said and verifying it by the means you claim we need to understand it, and taking what God has said and dismissing it with the same means by which you claim we need to understand it. Does that make sense? I look forward to your response.
I am not dismissing what God says in the Bible. I am trying to understand better what the Bible said to its original audience and then fallibly exegeting it to today. My point is simple. People are reading into the Bible the modern-day understanding of homosexuality and misinterpreting it because of this and they are neglecting to learn as much as possible about what we know about why people develop their sexual orientations.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 12/4/2003 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Quoted by DLW:
quote:
I am not dismissing what God says in the Bible. I am trying to understand better what the Bible said to its original audience and then fallibly exegeting it to today. My point is simple. People are reading into the Bible the modern-day understanding of homosexuality and misinterpreting it because of this and they are neglecting to learn as much as possible about what we know about why people develop their sexual orientations.
And we're saying that just because someone is physiologically inclined or destined to have homosexual or lesbian desires, through no fault of their own, that doesn't mean that they're exempt from God's condemnation of homosexual/lesbian acts of any kind. They suffer the unfortunate by-products of the Fall, as do many people in many different ways like: your heart, my O.C.D.-ridden brain, someone else's diabetes, etc. Jesus came to heal people from these things, not let us just wallow in it and certainly not to get around God's order of things like going ahead and getting married to someone of your own sex. How is one even to determine which gay/lesbian person is doing it because they can't help it, anyway? All people who are gay or lesbian say they can't help how they feel towards someone of their own sex. I'm sure that the people in Bible times were the same way, yet God still forbid them from committing gay and lesbian acts, too, in any capacity, including marriage. So, it's no different today. ALL people are capable of celibacy and living unmarried lives. Period. God does not give us more than we can handle.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 12/4/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
How we should handle the trials we are sent is not spelled out for us. What aspects of the sinful world we should take as relatively unlikely to change and which can be changed is something that experience plays a role in determing.
People can be honest about their sexual orientation and there are medical tests for this sort of thing, which is pointed out in some of the articles I provided a link for.
And, no not all have the gift of celibacy, for as Paul put it it is better for some to marry rather than burn with passion.
dlw
Yeah...if you can get someone to marry you. What are people supposed to do? Order mail-order brides/grooms? I've known people who'd like to get married but everyone keeps turning them down, or never even gets asked in the first place. So, they have no choice but to remain single and celebate. God's not going to force people to marry us just because "we can't be single" which is entirely untrue anyway. Paul was referring to people already in relationships who were in too deep emotionally to step back from it to remain single. But those who are not dating anyone exclusively or are engaged, and who are therefore not "burning with passion" for someone they're involved with, can remain single.
The context of Paul's statement was of remaining where you're at: those who are married should stay married, those who are single should stay single, and those who are in between with someone they intended to marry should go ahead and marry them so as not to "burn with passion."
Paul was speaking of what he thought was the imminence of Jesus' return, but it can still apply to our lives today. If you want to get married but don't have the option, you can still handle living alone. What are you gonna do? Beg and grovel to some woman because you can't stand being single? If she doesn't want to marry you, she's not gonna marry you and there's nothing you can do.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/13/2003 2:48 AM (GMT -6) | |
I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of expression is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next."
The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on expression, and it therefore passed constitutional muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity — including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States — was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination.
Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of expression often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada.
In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian customs frequently target books with homosexual content. Police raids searching for obscene materials have disproportionately targeted gay organizations and bookstores.
Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
A great deal more censorship in Canada seems inevitable. For example, British Columbia's extremely broad hate-speech law prohibits the publication of any statement that "indicates" discrimination or that is "likely" to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt. The Canadian thought police are on the march. Hopefully, it is not too late to stop them.
— David E. Bernstein is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Anti-Discrimination Laws.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|