Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[awareness]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by Trapped

You believe in an unrighteous God, awareness.

I'm not sure about that. I like to think God is righteous, but then I read the Bible. It looks to me like authors of the books of the Bible mischaracterize God. The book of Job comes to mind. How about this verse :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

If that verse is true, God doesn't have a chance against our weapons.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Your worldview, which is apparently theological determinism, says that God causes each person to act certain ways and then judges them for it.

That's not quite accurate. True, if God causes it he can't judge it. But what does God cause?

The Bible is confusing. Example, it says thou shalt not kill. But then God tells the Israelite's to go into the promised land and kill everything that breathes. And there's a verse like this one :

Psa 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Actually, this worldview is similar to atheistic materialists and doesn't require a God to even exist. We're all just moist robots, with our future actions already pre-wired, just acts of physics. In fact, if there is no such thing as free will, this necessarily means that there is no such thing as "wrong", and we have no place or right to condemn, say, Hitler for what he did.

You are right. God is not needed to determine right and wrong. We have laws, and courts, to determine that.

Originally Posted by Trapped

This viewpoint of yours may explain a good portion of your posts.......

Thanks ... maybe ... i guess.

I think the question on this thread is, does God cause homosexuality? I don't know. Are some people born gay? I think so. There's evidence of it, now that we know genetics and hormones have something to do with it. Does God cause it? I guess it depends on how involved He is. Is God involved at conception, development, and birth? According to the Bible, God controls the womb. That's pretty involved.

If that's true, and some are born gay -- even animals -- then God causes it. And I think we all agree that if God causes it, then He can't judge it.

Does this mean that I'm an atheist determinist? BTW, that's the first time I've heard that term. Are there theistic determinist's? Please help this idiot learn.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your response.

I'm not sure about that. I like to think God is righteous, but then I read the Bible. It looks to me like authors of the books of the Bible mischaracterize God. The book of Job comes to mind. How about this verse :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

If that verse is true, God doesn't have a chance against our weapons.

awareness, you are like a magician who whips out the most unexpected verses and conclusions. I chuckled the whole time reading through Judges 1. Most of the Bible commentaries on verse 19 (biblehub.com pulls a bunch of them together on one page) explain the iron chariot failure as a lack of belief on the part of Judah. They saw the iron chariots, their faith wavered, and thus couldn't drive them out. The commentaries reference other verses but I don't have time to go down those paths.

Originally Posted by awareness

That's not quite accurate. True, if God causes it he can't judge it. But what does God cause?

The Bible is confusing. Example, it says thou shalt not kill. But then God tells the Israelite's to go into the promised land and kill everything that breathes. And there's a verse like this one :

Psa 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

This is not in my wheelhouse, but again, the commentaries explain that this same thing was done by the Babylonians to Jewish children, and now divine retribution is occurring. This (admittedly horrible) thing was prophesied to happen in the future, and thus the expression of happiness at carrying out a prophecy.

Do I claim to understand? Nope.

And frankly, I'd rather pretend the book of Job doesn't exist. Every time I read it I kinda want to quietly whistle as I sidestep away from God, but, the reality is, just like my "God alone can kill someone and it's not murder" explanation to SL, the same applies with Job. God alone has the right to do what He wants with His creation. Do I like it? Not in cases like Job, no. Does it drive me to my knees in recognition of His might? Yep.

Originally Posted by awareness

You are right. God is not needed to determine right and wrong. We have laws, and courts, to determine that.

That's not quite what I meant. I meant, you can hold a predeterministic view and excise God from the picture and essentially end up with the same worldview. If you presupposed a creator God as opposed to a "all this came from nothing" view, then that God is the basis of right and wrong, He gave us a conscience, we have the moral law written on our hearts.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks ... maybe ... i guess.

I think the question on this thread is, does God cause homosexuality? I don't know. Are some people born gay? I think so. There's evidence of it, now that we know genetics and hormones have something to do with it. Does God cause it? I guess it depends on how involved He is. Is God involved at conception, development, and birth? According to the Bible, God controls the womb. That's pretty involved.

If that's true, and some are born gay -- even animals -- then God causes it. And I think we all agree that if God causes it, then He can't judge it.

Does this mean that I'm an atheist determinist? BTW, that's the first time I've heard that term. Are there theistic determinist's? Please help this idiot learn.

We can ask this same question about known birth defects. Did God cause that guy Nick Vujicic to be born without arms and legs? If there is going to be the genetic argument for homosexuality, then I personally think it is reasonable to assume something like environmental factors (say the increasing level of discarded medications in the groundwater, or whatever) have had an effect on some portions of the population at a genetic level. Genetic abnormalities, or normalities if you want to argue for it, don't always have to be caused by God. There's plenty of other influences on this earth; maybe we just haven't found the link yet.

Which is still why I say homosexual PEOPLE are not abominations, BEING homosexual is not a sin, it's JUST the sexual act that is the problem.

There are indeed theistic determinists, it's called "theological determinism", although the explanations frequently admit there are inherent problems with the perspective.

The phrase I used for atheists was atheistic materialist, which is saying the same thing as "atheistic determinism" but the word materialism is usually used. Basically atheist materialists believe that the material world is all there is, everything is grounded in the physical, atoms, molecules, etc and there are no immaterial realities, and so everything is just a matter of physics. Our thoughts, actions, behaviors, etc are all just physical neurons firing, we are pre-wired, and thus don't have free will. The problem with this perspective is, as I tried to explain, if we are all just wet robots wired to behave certain ways without any free will, then consequences for our actions become meaningless, and we have no grounds to punish a murderer because he didn't choose to murder, he was just wired to. But we all inherently know that murderers (outright, not defensive, etc) should receive retribution.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Which is still why I say homosexual PEOPLE are not abominations, BEING homosexual is not a sin, it's JUST the sexual act that is the problem.

How is it a problem? What act? All the behaviors that include the act? How far can I go? Can I kiss my sweetheart on the cheek? Is that a sin? Is holding hands a sin? Are these sexual acts?
Okay, so two women living together holding and kissing each other forever, showering together, without touching the genitals, thats not a sin. Got it!
Being a homosexual is okay without the grand finale.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

How is it a problem? What act? All the behaviors that include the act? How far can I go? Can I kiss my sweetheart on the cheek? Is that a sin? Is holding hands a sin? Are these sexual acts?
Okay, so two women living together holding and kissing each other forever, showering together, without touching the genitals, thats not a sin. Got it!
Being a homosexual is okay without the grand finale.

No, they say celibate homosexuality is not sin. But in reality they believe just homosexual romance is a sin.

It's like the wife, or husband, asking their cheating partner, do you love her? Just sex isn't liked, but romance is unacceptable and is a deal breaker.

So showering together may not be sin -- girls locker rooms -- but romantic involvement is, even if you don't touch. It's the romance alone that's sin. It leads to all the rest.

Cuz you see, Jesus says : "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his[her] heart."

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, they say celibate homosexuality is not sin. But in reality they believe just homosexual romance is a sin.

It's like the wife, or husband, asking their cheating partner, do you love her? Just sex isn't liked, but romance is unacceptable and is a deal breaker.

So showering together may not be sin -- girls locker rooms -- but romantic involvement is, even if you don't touch. It's the romance alone that's sin. It leads to all the rest.

Cuz you see, Jesus says : "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his[her] heart."

okay but there’s nothing saying that God punished David and Jonathan’s love. Unless you count Jonathans death in the battle, but I think that was more because God wanted to punish Saul.

So okay my entire romantic relationship is a sin. So am I going to go tell my wife “hey sweetie, our entire relationship is a sin in Christian God’s eyes, so lets get a divorce”. That doesnt sound right. That leads to more suffering. A moral God would never break apart what is good.

Thats why Trapped I feel bad for you.

ALL of my clients in my private practice coming in with mental health issues are Christians. Is it a coincidence? I think not. Because keeping to the laws centuries years old and an angry God can make one go beserk.

[Sons to Glory!]

Wow - lot's of responses on here in the last day! I guess I don't have to concern myself that this thread will languish in any way while I'm not able to be on here (I was traveling - did you miss me? ). Anyway, lots of good conversation. Trapped, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses! And sis Serenity, I appreciate your hanging in with the discussion!

So awareness, I've posted regarding this a number of times, but feel it has still not maybe received direct answers from you (apologize if I missed your specific responses). Therefore, instead of me just trying to "talk louder," maybe I should ask in a different way:

1) You don't believe that man really has free will, right?

2) You don't believe God created man perfectly, right?

3) You don't believe there was a major fall that brought in sin and caused the proverbial cesspool we're in, right?

Bonus Question: You believe God isn't really loving and has less than good motives, is that correct?

Awareness, I appreciate your concise answers to these questions, if you would, as I think it would help clarify some things . . . A lot has been said, and maybe you feel like you've answered these (things do tend to get "lost in the sauce"); if you do think you've answered these already, could you please answer these specific questions above (again)? I think it would be helpful.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow - lot's of responses on here in the last day! I guess I don't have to concern myself that this thread will languish in any way while I'm not able to be on here (I was traveling - did you miss me? ). Anyway, lots of good conversation. Trapped, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses! And sis Serenity, I appreciate your hanging in with the discussion!

I was wondering where you were haha. But while awareness comes up with answers to those questions, I still have a lot of unanswered questions as well that werent addressed yet in the thread..I was hoping someone can address them but they were too lost in the proverbial sauce.
but I can answer your question that homosexuality is not off the mark (a question you raised earlier by pointing to the article I mentioned a few posts earlier regarding the morality of homosexuality as being so much more than just sex. It brings so many human, psychological, emotional benefits. In fact to say that one has to be celibate is contradicting Paul’s admonishment that not all can be celibate and that it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Here is the article in case you missed it- “http://jamesharper1.blogspot.com/201...ently.html?m=1

“The biblical passages on homosexuality are examples of exactly the kind of ambiguous statements which need to be interrogated in the light of ordinary morality before we can decide whether they are or are not commands of God. Of course, it is possible that our moral reasoning will let us down, or be influenced by our changing culture- but this is all we have. The alternative is to revert to a purist Divine Command theory which, as noted above, has unacceptable implications.Homosexuality, therefore, needs to be evaluated in light of the best moral thinking currently available to us, in order to decide whether it is the kind of thing God would allow, promote, discourage, or rule out absolutely...Modern moral philosophy is a normally a matter of some sort of combination of the following: weighing up the good and bad consequences of an act, considering rights and responsibilities of those involved, and applying rules and principles which we generally believe to be important. Of course, many of us evaluate consequences differently, and we hold different general principles. .”

see post 470 for more detail

And Trapped, I know you are always busy but thank you for being such a good sport. Youd till owe me some answers regarding what you wrote a week ago:
Paul’s context for homosexuality in his verses
masturbation/Onanism
the Huffpo article

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

okay but there’s nothing saying that God punished David and Jonathan’s love. Unless you count Jonathans death in the battle, but I think that was more because God wanted to punish Saul.

Christians that hold to the Bible look the other way concerning David and Jonathan. They'll really dig deep into other Bible stories, but don't admit connecting the dots between David and Jonathan. They'd rather talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Leviticus 18, and the few verses by Paul concerning homosexuality, when there's more verses concerning D & J.

I think it's heterosexual bias ... back then and now.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians that hold to the Bible look the other way concerning David and Jonathan. They'll really dig deep into other Bible stories, but don't admit connecting the dots between David and Jonathan. They'd rather talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Leviticus 18, and the few verses by Paul concerning homosexuality, when there's more verses concerning D & J.

I think it's heterosexual bias ... back then and now.

I would say they choose the other places in the Bible but they dont dig deep enough no matter which one they’re looking at. Sodom and Gomorrah was more about gang rape, debauchery (remember, Lot offered both his daughters to be gang raped) and inhospitality than loving same sex relationships. Leviticus 18 had a whole range of other examples, of unclean vs clean etc. And Paul, well they dont consider the historical context Paul was writing in.