Homosexuality and the Bible

[Scrapheap]

They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period.   Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read?    It makes it easier to oppress them that way.

Not true.

O RLY?

The Bible's full of shit anyway.

Mainly because you ran out of TP.

it gets me hot when people say "ORLY" .

Do you listen to Tom Likus??

[Calandale]

I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it.  If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.

Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.

Probably in the closet though.

[Alex179]

I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it.  If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.

Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.

Probably in the closet though.

If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all.  God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level.  An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways.   Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually.   An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.

[willow]

I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it.  If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.

well, of course.


I just thought it was a joke. anyone who thinks anything other than what you just said is a fucking tool.

[Calandale]

If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all.

Whoa, I totally don't see this. Only seems to matter if I did differentiate.

 

God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level.

Why would God be so limited? Why not ALL types of love, as I suggested?
Wouldn't that make more sense? Or wouldn't all things that we call love
which aren't a reflection of God's love not be love at all?

An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways.   Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually.   An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.

Again, this seems to go against the whole concept of the Logos,
as I understand it. It is the pattern on which all of reality is supposedly
based. Doesn't making God sexless somehow weaken his perfection?
Or is sexuality an evil? Something presumably NOT created by this
perfect being then.

[Alex179]

God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations.   Doesn't even have to impregnate females physically.   Power of thought does that.   Sex is a humanly pleasure as it is among the best pleasures we can have, but it wouldn't be the same for a God though.   I am talking in a monotheistic sense.   God's type of love would be different because it doesn't have to feel the same type of emotions for its creations as it would towards something evenly remotely equal.   God would be alone in a monotheistic sense in my opinion, most concepts of monotheistic Gods are that their actual presence would kill or harm humans in their mortal form.

[Calandale]

God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations.   Doesn't even have to impregnate females physically.   Power of thought does that.   Sex is a humanly pleasure as it is among the best pleasures we can have, but it wouldn't be the same for a God though.   I am talking in a monotheistic sense.   God's type of love would be different because it doesn't have to feel the same type of emotions for its creations as it would towards something evenly remotely equal.   God would be alone in a monotheistic sense in my opinion, most concepts of monotheistic Gods are that their actual presence would kill or harm humans in their mortal form.

Do you not see the error of discussin A God, in the monotheistic sense?

Anyhow, it's got nothing to do with use. It has to do with the patterns;
the logos. For anything to be present in reality, according to the neoplatonistic
formulations which Christianity (at the least) generally uses, it would be
NECESSARY.

[Alex179]

Do you not see the error of discussin A God, in the monotheistic sense?

Anyhow, it's got nothing to do with use. It has to do with the patterns;
the logos. For anything to be present in reality, according to the neoplatonistic
formulations which Christianity (at the least) generally uses, it would be
NECESSARY.

Well if you are looking at the Bible, then it is a monotheistic God.  This thread was homosexuality and the Bible.  The whole point of capitalizing the word god is that there is only one.   Otherwise you would be referring to shit like the Greek gods.  You don't have to capitalize those and they could of course be sexual with eachother and humans.   It makes less sense for a single God to do that if it is truly all powerful. 

The Logos is a Catholic concept based on a word that does not exist in the Bible itself.  It has to do with the Word of God and it being intermediary between God the Father and humans.  The Word of God is a message sent by God and as humans can speak as soon as they think so can a God.  Such a God creates and forms the world with mere words (which are basically thoughts vocalized).   So if you could silence God, the powers would theoretically be useless?   The Logos is also said to be Christ.   Christ was seen to as not have had sex at all, he was a God in mortal form.    Jesus was only here to deliver a message and he did, was persecuted and killed for that message.  There are no records of Jesus having sex oustide of marriage or being married at all (the Divinci Code is BS).   That seems a hard thing to believe, but Jesus made it to his 30s without having sex and then died and came back 3 days later then ascended to heaven 40 days later.    God the Father still is Jehovah, the Holy Spirit and the Word (Jesus) are mainly extensions of him in my opinion that are there to relate to humans.   The Holy Spirit isn't really physical and Jesus was only here a short time relatively and had no sex.   I doubt God has had sex with someone if the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God is what you are referring to.

[Calandale]

The Logos is a Catholic concept based on a word that does not exist in the Bible itself.

More than just Catholic. Without it, the Trinity makes on sense, no?

It has to do with the Word of God and it being intermediary between God the Father and humans.  The Word of God is a message sent by God and as humans can speak as soon as they think so can a God.  Such a God creates and forms the world with mere words (which are basically thoughts vocalized).   So if you could silence God, the powers would theoretically be useless?

 

Sure. IF you can silence this supposedly omnipotent being,
which is of course impossible. Though, it is not usually considered
a spoken thing, but rather the ideal of all that is.

There are no records of Jesus having sex oustide of marriage or being married at all (the Divinci Code is BS). 

Actually, that's one of the telling points, which originated with biblical scholars long
before the DaVinci Code, OR it's predecessor, but let's imagine that indeed the
ceremonies of noble marriage were not what they might appear, for the sake of
arguing within the bounds of theology.

That seems a hard thing to believe, but Jesus made it to his 30s without having sex and then died and came back 3 days later then ascended to heaven 40 days later.    God the Father still is Jehovah, the Holy Spirit and the Word (Jesus) are mainly extensions of him in my opinion that are there to relate to humans.   The Holy Spirit isn't really physical and Jesus was only here a short time relatively and had no sex.

Not co-equal? I thought Arianism was wiped out. Did protestants revive it?

  I doubt God has had sex with someone if the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God is what you are referring to.

Not necessary. The point is that the idea of sexual love was
present. Otherwise, Christ could not have suffered, as a
human. Though, it does seem a bit odd that he could
be without sin, and do so. Always troubled me a bit.

[Alex179]

The Trinity was not a concept until the New Testament and the Catholics first coined the term obviously.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are put on a equal plane.   Jehovah is God and those are parts of him (thus making them on equal plane).   If the Father wanted more parts for himself he could surely make them.   

Jesus in mortal form dying without sin was the entire point of his sacrifice.   It was God in mortal human form dying without sin and still being seperated from the Father that made it a sacrifice no matter how long the period of time spent in hell supposedly Christ went through.   Right before his death, Jesus was flooded with all of the sins made by humanity then and in the future.  That was his whole point of existence.  After his death he paid their punishment.   That is the reason people do not have to suffer in hell but are able to enter heaven.  His suffering was both on earth and after his death in hell, the pain he felt has nothing to do with him seeking pleasure.   

[SovaNu]

I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it.  If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.

Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.

Probably in the closet though.

If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all.  God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level.  An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways.   Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually.   An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.

we, as individuals are the cells of god.

[Calandale]

  If the Father wanted more parts for himself he could surely make them.     

So, there is nothing special about three?
I mean, shouldn't that be the perfect choice?

[DirtDawg]

we, as individuals are the cells of god.

... and my most trusted and dear neighbor is a tree.

[Lucifer]

if she starts going on about starseeds, i really will have to kill her. 

[SovaNu]

we are all starseeds.

They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period.   Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read?    It makes it easier to oppress them that way.

Not true.

O RLY?

The Bible's full of shit anyway.

Mainly because you ran out of TP.

it gets me hot when people say "ORLY" .

hmph. i was going to make an ORLY joke. i forgot.