Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

Weeeellll......I'll mention one thing.

Where were they placed? In a garden. A big garden. A garden full of trees. Full of trees with fruit that can be eaten.

So in a sense, it makes perfect sense for God to use a tree as the test......because in a garden FULL of other options, man has no excuse for taking from the only, one, singular thing that was forbidden.

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....there were only 4 trees and I didn't like the taste of some of them so in order to eat I had to take from the one you told me not to eat of." They had, probably literally, at least hundreds of other trees to take from. There was no reason to eat of the TOTKOGAE. It's a good test God set up that used something so prevalent so that man could be.....

.....without excuse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....

.....without excuse.

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

[Ohio]

[QUOTE=awareness;96060]By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.
[/BQUOTE]
This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence that God created immature children, who did not understand His commands?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence that God created immature children, who did not understand His commands?

Where's the evidence that God didn't. Seems there's more evidence in my favor, just judging by what the record said they did.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

By man I mean mankind, both Adam and Eve. Neither could claim unfairness (even though they both tried to point the finger at someone else).

Between verse 7 and 13 (when Adam and then Eve were created), enough stuff happened between God and Adam that we should be hard pressed to call Adam like a little kid. God entrusts him with responsibilities and tasks and interacts with him repeatedly. Even a kid understands "don't eat that".

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Between verse 7 and 13 (when Adam and then Eve were created), enough stuff happened between God and Adam that we should be hard pressed to call Adam like a little kid. God entrusts him with responsibilities and tasks and interacts with him repeatedly. Even a kid understands "don't eat that".

They may understand the command but would they do it? If it were us being Adam and Eve, would we have acted differently? Check out this experiment of delayed gratification done with kids and marshmallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan...low_experiment

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E. Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E. Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

Good questions, and I don't know that I understand all the answers fully, so hopefully others will jump in.

So for your first question of why all are judged because of Adam/Eve's disobedience . . . one answer is because we were all in Adam as a corporate man. We may not think this is fair, because we technically weren't individuals yet. But let's say that we were present in Adam. In that case we all did it. Again, you may say this is not fair, because you should have had an individual voice in the matter. But again, in a corporate sense, we were all there. Kinda hard to conceive of this as the individuals we are now, and we can cry, "It's not fair!", but there it is.

However, on the plus side of this corporate aspect is who we are in Christ. Because of one Man's (Christ's) righteous act, the many are constituted righteous. (Romans 5) How does this happen exactly? It's hard to fathom, but God, when we have faith in Christ, puts us in Him and imputes His righteousness to us! So I might not agree that through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), sin and death came in - but I surely like the fact that the Father sees me as the righteousness of God in Christ because of His one righteous act!

The other idea, that some on here argue against, is that something not intended for man got into mankind through the eating of the forbidden fruit ("in eating it you will die"), and this corruption was passed along. But I'll leave that idea for now, so as not to continue that sidebar.

I thought the second question would be perhaps more difficult to answer because it's a hypothetical, then again, maybe not. One can easily conjecture that since God created beings of the opposite sex, that was his intention all along.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good questions, and I don't know that I understand all the answers fully, so hopefully others will jump in.

So for your first question of why all are judged because of Adam/Eve's disobedience . . . one answer is because we were all in Adam as a corporate man. We may not think this is fair, because we technically weren't individuals yet. But let's say that we were present in Adam. In that case we all did it. Again, you may say this is not fair, because you should have had an individual voice in the matter. But again, in a corporate sense, we were all there. Kinda hard to conceive of this as the individuals we are now, and we can cry, "It's not fair!", but there it is.

However, on the plus side of this corporate aspect is who we are in Christ. Because of one Man's (Christ's) righteous act, the many are constituted righteous. (Romans 5) How does this happen exactly? It's hard to fathom, but God, when we have faith in Christ, puts us in Him and imputes His righteousness to us! So I might not agree that through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), sin and death came in - but I surely like the fact that the Father sees me as the righteousness of God in Christ because of His one righteous act!

The other idea, that some on here argue against, is that something not intended for man got into mankind through the eating of the forbidden fruit ("in eating it you will die"), and this corruption was passed along. But I'll leave that idea for now, so as not to continue that sidebar.

I thought the second question would be perhaps more difficult to answer because it's a hypothetical, then again, maybe not. One can easily conjecture that since God created beings of the opposite sex, that was his intention all along.

Right. Without the fall -- in each of us -- there's no need for Jesus.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

They may understand the command but would they do it? If it were us being Adam and Eve, would we have acted differently? Check out this experiment of delayed gratification done with kids and marshmallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan...low_experiment

Only have a couple seconds to write but actually your "they may understand but would they do it" question feeds perfectly into my personal thought that Adam and Eve would have been allowed access to the TOTKOGAE eventually once they showed they would obey God (given that, as I said to StG, Hebrews tells us that mature believers discern between good and evil).

I've seen the marshmallow experiment before -- too cute, honestly. You can see the (sometimes very short) struggle on the kids faces!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

Parameter 3 comes from:

1. God
2. the Bible
3. all of human history
4. outward design
5. inward biology

Of course gay people can marry. They can marry anyone within those boundaries just like everyone else. Like I said in my post, the right to marry has not been denied gay people, but the right to marry "whoever I'm attracted to" has NEVER been a blanket right for ANYONE.

Again, this post is going to be clinical and cold. It is not personal towards you. It does not mean I don't care a lot. But the cold hard truth is that COUNTLESS people don't get to have their "right to intimacy", for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with LGBT issues.

-mental retardation
-physical defects
-illness that takes their life prematurely
-car accident paralyzing them, leaving them without the ability to feel sexual pleasure
-heterosexuals for whom God doesn't answer their desperate pleas
-people who were married but their spouses divorced them for unbiblical reasons leaving them unable to remarry and have sex while they wait on their ex-spouse to break the marriage covenant sexually.....I know too many like this
-etc

Life is suffering. Period. We are not here for this world. We are on a plane ride on a broken down plane and we all have to jump with a parachute when the plane goes down. The parachute is Jesus, who saves us from death.

What we've done is think that while we are on this broken down doomed plane we are entitled to everything our heart desires, but that focus is completely wrong.

Remember, you are speaking to someone who knows every second of every day that we don't all have a "right to intimacy" however we want it.

I never compared gay couples to incest. That parameter was on the list, but it wasn't a comparison TO gay couples.

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

The negative thing that can happen for the gay married couple? Finding out what it means to fall into the hands of the living God who has made it repeatedly clear that homosexuals who practice same-sex relations won't make it into the kingdom of God. Finding out what the wrath of God is. Finding out just how seriously God takes sin. Finding out that God is not all-forgiving, but punishes all sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed one single time, and their punishment was death. I would say that's a pretty negative consequence for gay married couples.

This is the same argument for two committed heterosexuals living together their whole life, having sex but not being married. "What's the one negative thing that can lead to?" Plenty of people do it. It's normal in this society now. But the negative thing is that God has said very clearly that it is sin in His eyes.

Don't mistake God's patience and kindness as His approval.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature.

As has been discussed on here, it is not against their "God given nature." It is an aberration, something off-the-mark (sin) that occurred after God's perfect creation.

Trapped put it very well as is quoted again below. Sin is a very basic idea in the Bible, and therefore why we need The Savior!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

As an example to this last part, it is like me getting drunk and committing adultery and then saying God fully approves of it! (these things, like gay actions, are all off the mark)

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.


I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

During the Civil rights movement, proponents of black slavery were using Ephesians 5:6 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

African Americans had to change the parameters to get what they deserved.

1st Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Women rights were trying to change this parameter to become teachers and enter educational fields

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E.

I totally understand where you are coming from, and I thought this, quite angrily, for years.

Then I came across an example online a few years ago that helped me. I tried to find it again yesterday but couldn't so I'll have to try to convey it as best I can.

Imagine you've got a man who owns a large property. On this property is a deep pit. This man tells his gardener "you can go anywhere on the property to do your work, but just stay away from that pit. Once you fall in, you're out of luck. We can't get you out."

And the gardener goes and jumps in the pit. He was told not to, he was told what would happen, and he knew he would be doomed. Is he at fault? Yep. Is he stuck in the pit and needs someone to get him out? Yep.

Got it? Okay. So now pretend that gardener is actually a pregnant woman. The pregnant woman is told “you can go anywhere on the property but stay away from the pit. We can’t get anyone out of the pit who falls in. You’re doomed if you do.”

And the pregnant woman does the same thing as the gardener. She jumps into, or gets too close to and falls into, the pit. She was told not to, she knew what would happen, and she knew she would be doomed. Is she at fault? Yep. Is she stuck in the pit and needs help to get out? Yep.

And let’s say the pregnant woman is in the pit long enough that she has her child, a little boy. The baby boy is born into the pit. This is akin to our situation. We are the babies born into the pit.

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

I recognize this analogy isn’t perfect, and I can think of a few ways already that it isn’t (God’s judging us for our actions, although if a baby grows up in a pit and murders someone else there, it’s still an evil action whether in a pit or not). Being in a pit doesn’t make sins not sins.

But I personally was helped by the analogy because it’s the first time I’d heard something that recognized we were not the ones who originally “jumped into the pit” (sinned) but also shows that we need saving regardless.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

If God created Eve and Eve, and said a woman should leave her mother and mother and marry another woman, and if "women lying with men as if with a woman" was repeatedly spoken of negatively in the Bible, of course Christians would look askance at heterosexual sexual activity because THAT would be contrary to scripture.

How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall? Well, what we are told is that Adam was there. God created woman from him. Adam really seemed to like the woman. Adam and Eve had sex and had kids. I don't see evidence for even a hint of gayness in any of that. They were the only two people before the fall and theirs was clearly a heterosexual relationship, so, no, there is no evidence that gayness was an attribute before the fall.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And let’s say the pregnant woman is in the pit long enough that she has her child, a little boy. The baby boy is born into the pit. This is akin to our situation. We are the babies born into the pit.

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

This is one aspect. Not bad, as it shows we were "in" Adam when he made that fateful error. But as Romans 7:17-18 shows, something of that rebellious nature is actually in the "baby" too (that will prompt it to murder, steal, lie, etc.): "It is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh."

I kinda like to replace "the pit" in this sort of analogy with a cesspool. Mankind is drowning in unimaginable filth and winds-up ingesting a lot of crap!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This is one aspect. Not bad, as it shows we were "in" Adam when he made that fateful error. But as Romans 7:17-18 shows, something of that rebellious nature is actually in the "baby" too (that will prompt it to murder, steal, lie, etc.): "It is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh."

I kinda like to replace "the pit" in this sort of analogy with a cesspool. Mankind is drowning in unimaginable filth and winds-up ingesting a lot of crap!

Agreed, there are some shortcomings to the analogy. I was going to go in a direction of having the "pit life" or something but didn't have the energy. The cesspool angle works great for me!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

God would then say, "as the sin, so the salvation." God would say, "all I required to impute My righteousness to any person is for them to believe." That's all I require. Is that really so difficult? And I place no requirements on time or space. Not a Jew, no problem. Not living in the 1st century, no problem. Not living after My Son's sacrifice, no problem. Not a rich person, no problem. Not a smart person, no problem. Not literate, no problem. Not able to see or hear, no problem.

We may all have a million complaints about getting a raw deal in this life, but regarding the debt to the law for our sins, we have no complaint, Jesus paid that debt once for all, for all of us.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God would then say, "as the sin, so the salvation." God would say, "all I required to impute My righteousness to any person is for them to believe." That's all I require. Is that really so difficult? And I place no requirements on time or space. Not a Jew, no problem. Not living in the 1st century, no problem. Not living after My Son's sacrifice, no problem. Not a rich person, no problem. Not a smart person, no problem. Not literate, no problem. Not able to see or hear, no problem.

We may all have a million complaints about getting a raw deal in this life, but regarding the debt to the law for our sins, we have no complaint, Jesus paid that debt once for all, for all of us.

Agreed. Jesus says "here let me help you out of your doomed condition" and people instead turn around and say "how dare You!" and curse Him and hate Him. We have no complaint for how simple God has made it.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall? Well, what we are told is that Adam was there. God created woman from him. Adam really seemed to like the woman. Adam and Eve had sex and had kids. I don't see evidence for even a hint of gayness in any of that. They were the only two people before the fall and theirs was clearly a heterosexual relationship, so, no, there is no evidence that gayness was an attribute before the fall.

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

I always thought that Eve would have been quite gorgeous and talented.

I doubt if Adam had any complaints.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

This is extreme grasping at non-existent straws.

But I'll entertain the scenario as if there are straws. Adam lived to 930 years old. That's plenty of time for if when Adam was, say, 500 years old, and saw some hot young 200 year old guy crossing the street that "aroused something in him" he could have acted on it.

And yet.....not one record of anything like that in the Bible. Adam is only ever represented as a heterosexual husband of a woman, even though he had more time than any of us ever will to swing the other way if that was something that actually happened.