# Most religions against homosexuality?



## Artfuldodger (Jun 26, 2014)

If the God of Abraham is against homosexuality, why are most of the other so called Gods also against homosexuality?
If there is no correlation of Gods between the continents, how did the false God believers come up with the same concept of the one and only true God?
Did the one and only true God secretly  put his belief into the false religion believers heads? If so why would he do this? Is homosexuality so bad that it's just a coincidence like murder? Why would some Atheist be against homosexuality?
I'm trying to see why it's more than a Christianity sin.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the God of Abraham is against homosexuality, why are most of the other so called Gods also against homosexuality?
> If there is no correlation of Gods between the continents, how did the false God believers come up with the same concept of the one and only true God?
> Did the one and only true God secretly  put his belief into the false religion believers heads? If so why would he do this? Is homosexuality so bad that it's just a coincidence like murder? Why would some Atheist be against homosexuality?
> I'm trying to see why it's more than a Christianity sin.




In what other religions is it a sin?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> In what other religions is it a sin?



Judaism and Islam.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Judaism and Islam.




So that's three said under Abraham. What other world religions? or Gods? have it being against the topic?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> So that's three said under Abraham. What other world religions? or Gods? have it being against the topic?



I don't think other major religions have the same concept of "sin" that the Abrahamic faiths have.  I did a quick search on Buddhism and Hinduism but could not find anything conclusive.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think other major religions have the same concept of "sin" that the Abrahamic faiths have.  I did a quick search on Buddhism and Hinduism but could not find anything conclusive.



Shinto is an unlikely candidate as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> In what other religions is it a sin?



I truly thought it was a sin or frowned upon by the whole world but it does appear to be mostly in Christian & Muslim Countries. Within those two, Christians, are the most tolerant or progressive in views toward homosexuals. Christians are also more tolerable in women's rights too. Any correlation? 

I guess in all the other non-Christian or Muslim countries there just aren't many homosexuals. They didn't need any laws/sins against homosexuality.
In the Holy Lands at some point homosexuality must have gotten out of hand and thus needed laws/sins to control it. 

Unless, unless there wasn't any more homosexuals in the Holy Land than anywhere else and the laws/sins were for heterosexuals. People exchanging one way for another. People abandoning one way for another.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 27, 2014)

Taking religion out of it, don't make no sense.

Parts don't exactly mesh.. if you know what I mean.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2014)

Big7 said:


> Taking religion out of it, don't make no sense.
> 
> Parts don't exactly mesh.. if you know what I mean.



While that is true for me too but in the USA which religions do we leave in it? I never dated black women but would hate to think our laws prevented it. I don't like for women to wait on me at the lumber stores but I don't believe we should have rules against hiring them. I am glad they finally let women be loan officers at the bank though.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2014)

As more Muslims move into the US do y'all see an alliance forming with Christians to support the anti-gay agenda?
Even with no alliance it should happen anyway as their religion of not much gay tolerance overtakes liberal Christian views. Maybe even to the point of making gay sex illegal.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 28, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I truly thought it was a sin or frowned upon by the whole world but it does appear to be mostly in Christian & Muslim Countries. Within those two, Christians, are the most tolerant or progressive in views toward homosexuals. Christians are also more tolerable in women's rights too. Any correlation?
> 
> I guess in all the other non-Christian or Muslim countries there just aren't many homosexuals. They didn't need any laws/sins against homosexuality.
> In the Holy Lands at some point homosexuality must have gotten out of hand and thus needed laws/sins to control it.
> ...






"I guess in all the other non-Christian or Muslim countries there just aren't many homosexuals."

You make the darnest statements sometimes.  I suspect you are being sarcastic.  Also,the Prme Minister of Iran once saint this exact same thing concerning his country. No wait, he said there was none!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 28, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> As more Muslims move into the US do y'all see an alliance forming with Christians to support the anti-gay agenda?
> Even with no alliance it should happen anyway as their religion of not much gay tolerance overtakes liberal Christian views. Maybe even to the point of making gay sex illegal.




No. And, no. The freedom within Christianity, the freedom of choice, is very much opposed to denying choice to others and this is transferred to society. I don't think making sexual behaviors a crime is going to happen any time soon in our part of the world.

 I recall when in the 1960 and early 70 an interview question for federal government employment was, " Are you homosexual?" And some employment descriptions stated that homosexuals could not be employed .

 The idea was that the communists could bribe federal employees, and recruit them as spies, among other things. (There was also a fear that homosexuals were prone to be communist sympathizers in those days--for the goings on in English universities perhaps and in the west in general homosexuality was suspect of subversion or open rebellion against society. )

I always thought the employment requirement was kind of foolish because the stipulation did indeed create a prime  candidate for communist recruitment at the federal level...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 28, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> "I guess in all the other non-Christian or Muslim countries there just aren't many homosexuals."
> 
> You make the darnest statements sometimes.  I suspect you are being sarcastic.  Also,the Prme Minister of Iran once saint this exact same thing concerning his country. No wait, he said there was none!



Perhaps a little sarcastic but what I'm wondering or trying to show is, even without laws and sins against homosexuals, it isn't widespread. Even in areas we as Christians haven't spread the gospel, they aren't overrun with homosexuals. They don't even have laws against them. Their religions don't forbid homosexuality.
For this reason I believe God was referring to heterosexuals who "exchanged" or "abandoned" their sexuality for another types. They "turned" in many other ways also.


----------



## TTom (Jul 1, 2014)

Common in Greece in ancient times, common in Rome also in ancient times, some poly theistic religions had gods that were I guess the closest idea would be patron deity of homosexuality.
Hindu Pantheon has one, Summerian Mythology includes Gilgamesh and his lover Enkidu. Ancient Chinese Shamanistic mythos contain homosexual depictions, Tale of the Rabbit God.

I'd say the question's premise is an over reach


----------



## TTom (Jul 1, 2014)

As to why so many would be against it, a lack of ability to understand why men would find each other desireable in that way.

I don't understand it myself, but I have gotten past the idea of needing to understand it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2014)

Interesting how Native Americans viewed gays as "two spirited."

Two-spirit people (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans for gender-variant individuals within their communities. Non-Native anthropologists have historically used the term berdaches /bÉ™rËˆdæÊƒÉ¨z/ for individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes, but this term has more recently fallen out of favour.

Two-spirit people (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans for gender-variant individuals within their communities. Non-Native anthropologists have historically used the term berdaches /bÉ™rËˆdæÊƒÉ¨z/ for individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes, but this term has more recently fallen out of favour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

Homosexuality is an unnatural act. I don't say that to be controversial I am just stating a fact. Men and women were obviously meant to procreate. Having sexual relations with the same gender is just plain unnatural. I don't think it has anything to do with religion. It only has to do with human nature.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2016)

mdgreco191 said:


> Homosexuality is an unnatural act. I don't say that to be controversial I am just stating a fact. Men and women were obviously meant to procreate. Having sexual relations with the same gender is just plain unnatural. I don't think it has anything to do with religion. It only has to do with human nature.



While I see your point, it is a part of religion. Religion came before humans. God was before creation. The Word was already written.

The marriage analogy is often used within Christianity. Israel left her husband and became a prostitute. Israel exchanged the worship of their God for that of idols.


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

To a point I made earlier in another thread the word was not written before man. Again I understand that the Bible was the inspired word of God written through human beings. But anything that man touches can be tainted. Therefore literally taking the Bible word for word is probably not a good idea.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 30, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting how Native Americans viewed gays as "two spirited."
> 
> Two-spirit people (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans for gender-variant individuals within their communities. Non-Native anthropologists have historically used the term berdaches /bÉ™rËˆdæÊƒÉ¨z/ for individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes, but this term has more recently fallen out of favour.
> 
> ...



And I think this lore is propagated all out of proportion by the modern spin doctors. While this may have been true in a tribe or two, there were thousands of culturally distinct tribes in North America, and from what is known, most of them frowned on homosexuality also.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2016)

Almost every culture in every land frowns upon homosexuality.
Almost every religion frowns upon homosexuality. 
What's the underlying connection? 
The Great Architect of the Universe?


----------



## obligated (Aug 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Almost every culture in every land frowns upon homosexuality.
> Almost every religion frowns upon homosexuality.
> What's the underlying connection?
> The Great Architect of the Universe?



Every law God gave us was for protection.Dont be a freak and you don't reap the AIDs,Heppatitis,Herpes and other STDs along with the drug or alcohol addiction that is common in the Homosexual circles.Its not uncommon for homosexual males to have several(dozens) sexual partners they don't know from the clubs.I have a few friends that worked Vice Squad in Miami.They were glad to be transferred.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

obligated said:


> Every law God gave us was for protection.Dont be a freak and you don't reap the AIDs,Heppatitis,Herpes and other STDs along with the drug or alcohol addiction that is common in the Homosexual circles.Its not uncommon for homosexual males to have several(dozens) sexual partners they don't know from the clubs.I have a few friends that worked Vice Squad in Miami.They were glad to be transferred.



I've noticed drug users have multiple sex partners, especially females. Along with that come the STD's. I'm sure for drugs, they'll have any kind of sex needed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

obligated said:


> Every law God gave us was for protection.Dont be a freak and you don't reap the AIDs,Heppatitis,Herpes and other STDs along with the drug or alcohol addiction that is common in the Homosexual circles.Its not uncommon for homosexual males to have several(dozens) sexual partners they don't know from the clubs.I have a few friends that worked Vice Squad in Miami.They were glad to be transferred.



What about the Gentiles of the world before Paul? Did the gods of the Native Americans give out the same laws for STD prevention?

I'm trying to see this as it is listed under "other faiths." Almost every faith has basically the same laws regarding homosexual sex, unmarried sex, murder, rape, adultery, etc.

We as Christians know that God made the Law to show us why we needed Jesus. Maybe that and to show us gay sex or unmarried sex could lead to STD's.

"you shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together." 
That one I'm not sure about. Maybe some laws were just to mess with us.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2016)

I think lesbians have about as many partners per year as straight men. Gay men do tend to have more partners per year than everyone else. Straight women tend to have the least amount of partners than all of us.

Meaning? Women aren't as promiscuous? I can remember the day when I would have liked to of had more partners. Maybe gay men take advantage of this mindset. Women are better at controlling this urge.

When it comes having less partners, women make better Christians. If law keeping makes one a better Christian.


----------



## Hammer Spank (Sep 21, 2016)

It's pretty simple. If I am the founder of a religion, I want more followers. Homosexuals dont make more followers so Ill say that this is a sin. The same goes for abortion and birth control, etc etc


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> It's pretty simple. If I am the founder of a religion, I want more followers. Homosexuals dont make more followers so Ill say that this is a sin.



Neither do the celibate, yet celibacy is promoted by some religions (Buddhism, Catholicism.)

Homosexuality is opposed by the Abrahamic faiths because it is seen as sin, a perversion of nature.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> It's pretty simple. If I am the founder of a religion, I want more followers. Homosexuals dont make more followers so Ill say that this is a sin. The same goes for abortion and birth control, etc etc



That is an unfounded statement. Between adoption and insemination there are plenty of kids of homosexual families out there. All that I know are regular church goers and are actually very active in volunteering in their church and with stateside as well as international missions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 21, 2016)

I wonder why celibacy isn't a perversion of nature?


----------



## Hammer Spank (Sep 21, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is an unfounded statement. Between adoption and insemination there are plenty of kids of homosexual families out there. All that I know are regular church goers and are actually very active in volunteering in their church and with stateside as well as international missions.



Well, the religions you are all speaking of werent contrived today. They are all hundreds or thousands of years old.  

As we have also seen, religion evolves. It has to. Many christian faiths currently approve of homosexuality. They have also had to adjust their thinking about much of what is written in the bible due to scientific discovery.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> Well, the religions you are all speaking of werent contrived today. They are all hundreds or thousands of years old.
> 
> As we have also seen, religion evolves. It has to. Many christian faiths currently approve of homosexuality. They have also had to adjust their thinking about much of what is written in the bible due to scientific discovery.



Loving the sinner but not the sin is in no way an approval of a sinful lifestyle. The evolution I have seen in the last 50 years is that some of them are finally accepting the greatest commandments they were charged with.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 21, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is an unfounded statement. Between adoption and insemination there are plenty of kids of homosexual families out there. All that I know are regular church goers and are actually very active in volunteering in their church and with stateside as well as international missions.



What if you started a religion where there was a way out for your followers? Imagine a religion where your followers can't quit sinning so you offer them a way to get out of it.

Start a religion where you pick the followers from all aspects of civilization. From islands and villages across the world. Choosing all type of sinners.


----------



## Hammer Spank (Sep 22, 2016)

What about masturbation?  It's unnatural according to your "natural laws". I dont know where you get those since homosexuality and masturbation are both fairly common in the "natural world".


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> ... homosexuality and masturbation are both fairly common in the "natural world".



Is this a confession?


----------



## across the river (Nov 3, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> What about masturbation?  It's unnatural according to your "natural laws". I dont know where you get those since homosexuality and masturbation are both fairly common in the "natural world".



The whole :it is o.k. because it occurs in nature argument doesn't fly."  Mallard duck drakes and otters are notorious rapists, grizzly bear males kill there cubs as do chimps to drive the female back into estrus, most animals fight, bottle nose dolphins kill proposes, hyenas steal from other animal and each other, and so on and so on.  There are plenty of things in the "natural world" that aren't accepted by most humans regardless of their religious background.  However, if the is no God and we have all just developed through evolution over time, how did we as human decide that murder, stealing, and rape is bad after we did it as animals for years and years and years.  If it is all about survival of the fittest, then how did human after billion of years of "formation" one day decide that we need to help others, not steal, and not rape.  It makes no sense.  The "rules" had to come from somewhere, and it makes no sense that after billion of years of stealing, raping, and killing animals would one day decide that these things are wrong.  That is why using the nature argument to justify something doesn't work.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 6, 2016)

I'm sure that within the animal kingdom, disregarding humans, have to learn to live together or evolve to live together as a social group. They do have social skills. I would agree that we can't use animals as our rules to live by concerning one's religion.
God put forth to Israel certain laws to include not wearing certain kinds of cloths at the same time.
God didn't give the Native Americans living at the time he gave all of those rules he gave to the Jews.

Now some say God gave the power to know him by looking at nature. Thus the Native Americans possibly knew God and had to follow his rules.
I don't believe it happened or happens that way as God elects individuals from those groups and they are the one's enlightened.
The rest, even though human, still lived as savages and learned over time to become civilized.
Man wasn't born civilized. He had to learn to live in a social environment in order to survive. We still have individuals who steal, drive drunk, beat their wives, kill, hate, are jealous, are proud, gossip, and on and on. 

Leftover bad traits from a previous generation. Either man has the capability to know God without the gospel to overcome sin or he must know Jesus to over come sin. 
These traits are still in us. We can't just stop sinning. Therefore we must have Jesus die for us. This covers our sins. The only way back in time for individuals, even Native Americans, was to overcome sin, was to know Jesus.
How do you think they knew? How did they develop the ability to overcome sin? Evolution of social skills or knowing Jesus?

What if one overcomes killing, raping, gossiping, stealing, and cheating and still doesn't know Jesus?

There is a lot more to Christianity than just being good. We might can be good for nothing but it takes knowing Jesus to become a Christian.

Who is without excuse to know God? If one knows God, do they know Jesus? Remember Jesus is God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 6, 2016)

Hammer Spank said:


> What about masturbation?  It's unnatural according to your "natural laws". I dont know where you get those since homosexuality and masturbation are both fairly common in the "natural world".



I think bats might be the leading perverts within the animal world.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 6, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think bats might be the leading perverts within the animal world.



Mollusks get my vote.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Nov 24, 2016)

mdgreco191 said:


> To a point I made earlier in another thread the word was not written before man. Again I understand that the Bible was the inspired word of God written through human beings. But anything that man touches can be tainted. Therefore literally taking the Bible word for word is probably not a good idea.



I was raised in a Christian home but seldom practice what I learned. However I sure can see the BULL in this


----------



## TTom (Nov 29, 2016)

Across the river, if you disqualify the "if it is found in nature argument", then the flip side argument must also be disqualified.
Ergo the homosexuality is not natural and thus wrong argument is eliminated as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 29, 2016)

TTom said:


> Across the river, if you disqualify the "if it is found in nature argument", then the flip side argument must also be disqualified.
> Ergo the homosexuality is not natural and thus wrong argument is eliminated as well.



I'm not following you. Are you talking about sins that are found in nature? 
If the "it isn't natural" makes it wrong then "it is natural" makes it right.

I'm not sure Christianity has much to do with nature when it comes to what God based his sin list on. Especially the Old Testament list. Some of the sins there go against what I would have added and other things that God thought were OK, I wouldn't have. 
Especially concerning women as related to war, taking cities, etc.


----------



## TTom (Dec 1, 2016)

Yes Artfull I'm saying that the argument "not natural=wrong, and it's reverse argument that "natural = right" are joined. We've seen the homosexuality is not natural argument here hundreds of times as a means to infer that it cannot be right, OK, etc. 

I'm pointing out the fact that if someone argues that natural does not equal right, they cannot at the same time hold the belief that not natural equals wrong. It violates the Contraposition Law of logic.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 1, 2016)

Yeah I'm reminded of one of those nature shows(natural example) where the Alpha male primate hogs all the females for himself. I guess this natural concept insures that most of the offspring are big and strong like daddy.
Still the younger, skinnier, and weaker other males attempt to copulate without getting caught by Big Daddy.(quite entertaining to watch)

If we as Man were to follow that homosexuality isn't natural in nature, then we must also accept that the Alpha male in our group gets all the women.  
It's natural and therefore, right.


----------



## Spotlite (May 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I truly thought it was a sin or frowned upon by the whole world but it does appear to be mostly in Christian & Muslim Countries. Within those two, Christians, are the most tolerant or progressive in views toward homosexuals. Christians are also more tolerable in women's rights too. Any correlation?
> 
> I guess in all the other non-Christian or Muslim countries there just aren't many homosexuals. They didn't need any laws/sins against homosexuality.
> In the Holy Lands at some point homosexuality must have gotten out of hand and thus needed laws/sins to control it.
> ...


Might be the difference in the penalty for being a homosexual is different with the Christian. We don’t kill the homosexual.


----------



## Spotlite (May 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah I'm reminded of one of those nature shows(natural example) where the Alpha male primate hogs all the females for himself. I guess this natural concept insures that most of the offspring are big and strong like daddy.
> Still the younger, skinnier, and weaker other males attempt to copulate without getting caught by Big Daddy.(quite entertaining to watch)
> 
> If we as Man were to follow that homosexuality isn't natural in nature, then we must also accept that the Alpha male in our group gets all the women.
> It's natural and therefore, right.



Animals are controlled by instinct. Humans are controlled by affection. It’s not natural for man to fall in love with multiple women at one time. It’s leaning toward lust when there’s more than one. There’s no such thing as an affectionate animal. It might portray characteristics of what you think is affection but let someone else start feeding it.

No animal or human reproduces from a same sex relationship, something artificially must be done to fertilize unless they make a deal with a buddy, if nothing else, by default it’s not natural if the reproductive process has to be influenced by outside help.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Might be the difference in the penalty for being a homosexual is different with the Christian. We don’t kill the homosexual.



Has the penalty changed within Christianity? It appears that the three branches of the Abrahamic religions started out with the same laws and punishments but only Christianity offers a way out. 
Thus why we don't kill the homosexual. The penalty of sin is death.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Might be the difference in the penalty for being a homosexual is different with the Christian. We don’t kill the homosexual.



Any idea why homosexuality if frowned upon mostly worldwide. In all nations from tiny little villages to large cities.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Animals are controlled by instinct. Humans are controlled by affection. It’s not natural for man to fall in love with multiple women at one time. It’s leaning toward lust when there’s more than one. There’s no such thing as an affectionate animal. It might portray characteristics of what you think is affection but let someone else start feeding it.
> 
> No animal or human reproduces from a same sex relationship, something artificially must be done to fertilize unless they make a deal with a buddy, if nothing else, by default it’s not natural if the reproductive process has to be influenced by outside help.



Humans are still controlled by nature. Even within God's plan he made us animals. Maybe the only difference is we have souls and thus accountability.

The flesh is nature, the spirit is Spirit.

WE must fight nature our live long days in it. Maybe nature changed man from wanting to have multiple partners at one time to just having one. 
It could be the natural urge to have more than one partner is still there(flesh), we just don't act on it (spirit.)

If one is going to use the argument "it's not natural" then we as humans must be "natural" to make the argument work.


----------



## Spotlite (May 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> If one is going to use the argument "it's not natural" then we as humans must be "natural" to make the argument work.


 True



Artfuldodger said:


> Any idea why homosexuality if frowned upon mostly worldwide. In all nations from tiny little villages to large cities.


"Naturally" its just not natural??????


Artfuldodger said:


> Has the penalty changed within Christianity? It appears that the three branches of the Abrahamic religions started out with the same laws and punishments but only Christianity offers a way out.
> Thus why we don't kill the homosexual. The penalty of sin is death.



Separate the physical and spiritual death and you`re on to something.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

I wonder if being humans(man) it bothers us to be under so much power from our natural flesh? 
I know I do. I wish that I wasn't so "natural."


----------



## Spotlite (May 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if being humans(man) it bothers us to be under so much power from our natural flesh?
> I know I do. I wish that I wasn't so "natural."



The older I get the less the power of the “natural” gets the best of me at the beach, I look at half of the temptations and remind myself that I’m running on 4 cylinders now instead of the race engine.........so it doesn’t leave many to struggle over


----------



## Jack Ryan (May 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the God of Abraham is against homosexuality, why are most of the other so called Gods also against homosexuality?
> If there is no correlation of Gods between the continents, how did the false God believers come up with the same concept of the one and only true God?
> Did the one and only true God secretly  put his belief into the false religion believers heads? If so why would he do this? Is homosexuality so bad that it's just a coincidence like murder? Why would some Atheist be against homosexuality?
> I'm trying to see why it's more than a Christianity sin.



Common sense?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Jack Ryan said:


> Common sense?



I could see that if the Law came from man but the Law came from God. I don't think a natural man under the power of flesh has much common sense.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Maybe homosexuality being wrong is a two part thing. It's wrong for Christians because God said it was and it's wrong for the rest of the world because common sense tells them it is.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The older I get the less the power of the “natural” gets the best of me at the beach, I look at half of the temptations and remind myself that I’m running on 4 cylinders now instead of the race engine.........so it doesn’t leave many to struggle over



I know what you mean. Now that we mostly sit at home, we can look at how terrible the younger crowd is doing at not falling into temptation.

You talking 6 cylinder, right?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 1, 2018)

The first part of Andrew's radio show addresses this.

Link: Andrew Farley Live


----------



## Dmactds (Jun 21, 2018)

Jack Ryan said:


> Common sense?



I'm new here but I'll jump right in on this..., and it's about a question that's always perplexed me in my consideration of any number of thoughts, quandaries and beings and that is, if something has been around for as long as anyone has recorded anything, how can it be said to not be "natural"; and...., if we're all made in God's image what does that imply??

There're a couple of others like, when we're commanded , "Thou Shalt Not Kill", what does that include??  But that's a whole different question.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 21, 2018)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/LGBTIworldmap.jpg


----------



## Dmactds (Jun 21, 2018)

j_seph said:


> http://www.religioustolerance.org/LGBTIworldmap.jpg



I suppose one way of regarding that map is that it's yet another illustration of "Man's inhumanity to Man" and outlines just how much we are lacking in realizing God's plan.  
Many of those countries so hardline in their regard of homosexuality are very backward, unlearned in many graces and not the best examples of any of the best characteristics of humanity.

What else can you show me?


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 21, 2018)

Not sure why Christianity pics on homosexuals so much. Yes it is sin. And maybe if we all hold hands and join in the fight against it we won't have to deal with all the fornication and adultery thats in many of our own hearts! Two hairy men loving up on each other ain't whats setting me back. Maybe it's easier to focus on someone else's sin than my own? I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 21, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Not sure why Christianity pics on homosexuals so much. Yes it is sin. And maybe if we all hold hands and join in the fight against it we won't have to deal with all the fornication and adultery thats in many of our own hearts! Two hairy men loving up on each other ain't whats setting me back. Maybe it's easier to focus on someone else's sin than my own? I'm just sayin'.



It's not just Christianity and thus the OP. I see on the map India and Pakistan. 11 years to life.

Not one of my weaknesses either. Really it only effects about 5% of the population.  My weaknesses are more along the lines of lust and not forgiving others. With a tad of hatred, jealousy, and boasting.
People should focus on their own weaknesses other than that of others.


----------



## Dmactds (Jun 22, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Not sure why Christianity pics on homosexuals so much. Yes it is sin. And maybe if we all hold hands and join in the fight against it we won't have to deal with all the fornication and adultery thats in many of our own hearts! Two hairy men loving up on each other ain't whats setting me back. Maybe it's easier to focus on someone else's sin than my own? I'm just sayin'.




Matt...., "right as rain" !!!


----------



## Dmactds (Jun 22, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's not just Christianity and thus the OP. I see on the map India and Pakistan. 11 years to life.
> 
> Not one of my weaknesses either. Really it only effects about 5% of the population.  My weaknesses are more along the lines of lust and not forgiving others. With a tad of hatred, jealousy, and boasting.
> People should focus on their own weaknesses other than that of others.




(...Many of the areas on the map were under British rule during its days of empire; India, for instance, principally Hindu, was left with the 'residue' of English Christianity and is only now undergoing a reversion to its original religious tenets:...)
http://www.galva108.org/single-post/2014/05/15/Homosexuality-Hinduism-the-Third-Gender-A-Summary

"...The Christian British left the most significant, lasting mark on Hindu attitudes toward homosexuality—attitudes that were viciously negative and remain prominent in Hinduism up to this day. 

The British penalized homosexual behavior in India first by hanging and then with life sentences, incorporating Section 377 into the Indian Penal Code in 1860.  They also constructed educational facilities and colleges across the subcontinent that indoctrinated upwardly mobile natives into a very dark, criminal view of known or suspected “sodomites.” 

Nineteenth-century attitudes dubbing homosexual behavior as “unnatural,” “perverted,” “demonic,” “a mental illness,” “a chosen vice,” “shocking,” a “growing modern menace,” etc. are all Christian ideas with no foundation in traditional Hindu dogma or scripture.[37]  The British also criminalized crossdressing, castration and collecting alms under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 in an attempt to eliminate the hijra and third-gender sects found all over India.  Unfortunately, many of these harmful misunderstandings and attitudes have become ingrained into the modern Hindu psyche.

Modern Developments

In the 1990’s, LGBTI Indians and Hindus began a public dialog in Indian society, openly questioning their mistreatment and demanding equal rights and inclusion.  Pioneers such as Ashok Row Kavi, founder of India’s first gay magazine Bombay Dost, openly declared both his homosexuality and his faith in Hinduism.  Thus began the long process of reeducating Hindus about their formerly tolerant and noble past in regard to homosexuality and the third gender.

In 1999, India’s first small Gay Pride march took place in Calcutta.  It would soon be followed by others of increasing strength and number.  In 2001, the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association was founded to provide positive information and support to faithful LGBTI Vaishnavas and Hindus all around the globe.  The Delhi High Court effectively struck down India’s laws against homosexuality (Section 377) in 2009 but they were reinstated by the Supreme Court in 2013 at the petition of various anti-gay Christian, Muslim and even Hindu organizations.  This controversial decision is currently being reviewed under a curative plea.  In 2014, the Supreme Court granted legal recognition and equal constitutional rights to all individuals identifying as “third gender.”[38]  The justices cited India’s historic tradition of respecting such people and even questioned the compatibility of their verdict to Section 377 and the rights of other sex and gender minorities such as homosexuals.  Thus the legal situation of LGBTI people in India remains under review.

In today’s world, traditional Hindu teachings on homosexuality and the third gender shine new light whereas the intolerance and mistreatment of recent centuries continues to fall by the wayside.  Indeed, the chief instigators of homophobia in India, the Western colonialists, have long since packed their bags and even purged their own societies of the practice.  If one were to ask various Hindu swamis and leaders about their opinions on homosexuality and the third gender, one would inevitably hear a wide range of views, both good and bad. 

As with other faiths, Hinduism and its scriptures can be read and interpreted variously.  Nevertheless, higher qualities such as love, kindness and compassion should always be emphasized above the lower qualities of hate, cruelty and fear.  That is an eternal truth and good advice for everyone!.."


----------



## goodshot (Jun 22, 2018)

My Bible says in Genesis, "Male and female He created them", since the fall the adversary has attempted to pervert the order G-d gave His Creation.
There really is only one way, one truth and one life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 22, 2018)

goodshot said:


> My Bible says in Genesis, "Male and female He created them", since the fall the adversary has attempted to pervert the order G-d gave His Creation.
> There really is only one way, one truth and one life.



Genesis 5:1-2
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in His own likeness. 2Male and female He created them, and He blessed them. And in the day they were created, He called them “man.” 

He created male and female in his own likeness. Does that mean God is heterosexual? What is this passage saying for or against homosexuality?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 22, 2018)

Genesis 1:27-28
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28And God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.”

I can see why some people believe God had  attributes of sexuality. First he had a Son. He was a Father. His Son eventually became human. His Son was celibate.

We are made in his image. Male and female God created in his own likeness. Some say this is a spiritual likeness but why would God use it to explain creating male and females for being fruitful and to multiply?

Perhaps this passage is against celibacy. Could be against recreational sex.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 22, 2018)

Maybe God made the first person two-sided. Male and female was he made. Adam was originally alone remember and made in the image of God. Male and female. Maybe.

Adam had trouble pro-creating and asked God for help. God then split him and made Eve.

So in the image of God Adam had male chromosomes and female chromosomes. After the split Adam only had male chromosomes and Eve got the female chromosomes.
When they had sex and created, those offspring were the image of God.

I don't see how the creation of man by the Great Architect(God) has anything to do with being against homosexuality.  It's more about the creation of male and female humans in the image of God. Man was created after the plants and animals that were also male and female. Yet God originally made only Adam. Some plants are both male and female. Maybe God thought it would work for Adam but Adam complained that it was too hard to reproduce so God split him and made two.

Part of the image of our creation was to "rule" over the rest of God's creation. So maybe the image of God was rulers and had nothing to do with sexuality.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

Dmactds said:


> and...., if we're all made in God's image what does that imply??


There are several debates on the "Image" and "likeness"  of God. Mostly, having the moral capacity to rein and rule the earth is what sets us apart from all other creation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> There are several debates on the "Image" and "likeness"  of God. Mostly, having the moral capacity to rein and rule the earth is what sets us apart from all other creation.



While that does set us apart I still wonder why the image and likeness verses are used to show creation through male and female? Maybe the sexuality is one part and the ability to rule over creation is one part.
To be fruitful and reign.

Wonder how creating male and female in God's image ties in with man being the head of woman and God being the head of Christ? The Father/Son pre-existing and male & female made in that image. The head of one over the other likeness. Showing sexuality through the Father/Son example and showing ruling through the Father/Son example.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Could this all be connected? Father and Son? Male and female humans? The Bridegroom and the Bride? As to who is head of who?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> While that does set us apart I still wonder why the image and likeness verses are used to show creation through male and female? Maybe the sexuality is one part and the ability to rule over creation is one part.
> To be fruitful and reign.
> 
> Wonder how creating male and female in God's image ties in with man being the head of woman?
> ...


I agree here that this has a lot to do with the “order” of operation. If that’s the correct term. Christ is head of the church, husband is head of the wife. 

Between Christ and the Church there is a “Union” or marriage where we take on the name of Christ. We become one, the wife takes on the husbands name through marriage and they become one. 

Women submit yourselves unto your own husband. That’s not a “slave” order as some try to make it. That’s saying  be faithful to the one you married. 

Men are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, and gave himself up for her.  The Church is the body of Christ. We are to love our wives as we would love ourselves and even give up our own life for our wife to save hers. He is faithful to the Church, and we should be faithful to our wives.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I agree here that this has a lot to do with the “order” of operation. If that’s the correct term. Christ is head of the church, husband is head of the wife.
> 
> Between Christ and the Church there is a “Union” or marriage where we take on the name of Christ. We become one, the wife takes on the husbands name through marriage and they become one.
> 
> ...



Is Paul also saying the head of Christ is God? Could that be part of the image or likeness of our creation?


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Jun 24, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Not sure why Christianity pics on homosexuals so much. Yes it is sin. ..



Homosexuality is unique among sins because it has a great number of active proponents who are out and proud, and say it's a wonderful thing (for them, their partners, their families, their neighbors, their communities.)

Straight people have sinful sexual encounters-- fornication between unmarried persons, adulterous affairs, etc.  But they don't demand that society give them a high five and heap praise upon them.  They don't demand that schools teach serial sexual affairs as a natural and wholesome alternative to monogamous relationships.  They don't ask churches to give the "shack up lover of the month" the same status as a real spouse.
Homosexual activists make such demands, along with even more insane ones like teaching kids that they can pick any gender they want to be, and change it daily or hourly as the mood strikes them, and the parents and the schools must give them this "freedom" cross-dress or act-out homosexual conduct. 

Do you see unreformed, still-using drug addicts demanding that they be ordained as pastors, or employed as teachers? No. Drug abuse is a sin, but it's not a sin that has many advocates promoting it. Homosexuality does.

Robbery and stealing are sins. Most people who steal and rob are ashamed of it, or at least when they're in the company of decent people. They don't brag about being thieves and demand that nobody hold this against them in any way, because it's just how God made them, and you have to love and respect all of God's creations and don't try to change a personality (inclination to steal) that they say God implanted in them. That kind of idiotic argument is NOT being used commonly today, but gays are making those same arguments for their sin.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 24, 2018)

Gunnsmoker your points are very valid. However, at the end of the day I am only in control of myself. I believe gay is here to stay and the worst is yet to be seen. Lost is lost, gay or not. Not  my job to make folks straight or keep 'em that way. Not my job to out argue them in the political realm. Not my job to urge congress to pass laws to my liking. My job however is to show that Christ can and does change lives. You can't put folks in a headlock and drag them kicking and screaming to the alter. If we are not offering a gospel solution then we're only condemning folks that already know their wrong anyway. Their seeking love and acceptance from everyone. When and if they find the love and acceptance that only Christ offers, then they want need anyone else's acceptance. He'll take 'em as they are, but He want leave 'em that way!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2018)

_"And such were some of you_. But you were washed."


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is Paul also saying the head of Christ is God? Could that be part of the image or likeness of our creation?



It is my opinion that it represents the image and likeness 

But yes, 1 Cor 11:3 ...............the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, the head of Christ is God.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe God made the first person two-sided. Male and female was he made. Adam was originally alone remember and made in the image of God. Male and female. Maybe.
> 
> Adam had trouble pro-creating and asked God for help. God then split him and made Eve.
> 
> ...


My bible says nothing about maybe the first person was 2-sided or that Adam asked for help. 

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

There is no way when a man feels he was supposed to be woman or a woman a man that could happen. Verse 23 says that woman was taken out of man so why would God put woman back in a man or man into a woman when he done it right the first time? My God doesn't make mistakes.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2018)

j_seph said:


> 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 
> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:


The joining as one between man and woman....... could this be the first "wedding ceremony" of unity as one? Could this be a place where a religious person can hang there hat on "marriage as God intended it" 

Non the less, it is a clear indication that there were opposite genders created, and followed up with other scriptures, designed to reproduce.  






j_seph said:


> There is no way when a man feels he was supposed to be woman or a woman a man that could happen.



My neighbor recently had blood work to reveal the gender of her baby. I was thinking if the body make up and design says this is a girl, and it is born a girl..................but later thinks she is a boy..................seems to me that there is a wire crossed between the brain and the body? Maybe not so much as a "mental issue" but definitely something going on mentally between the brain and the body?


----------



## j_seph (Jun 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The joining as one between man and woman....... could this be the first "wedding ceremony" of unity as one? Could this be a place where a religious person can hang there hat on "marriage as God intended it"
> 
> Non the less, it is a clear indication that there were opposite genders created, and followed up with other scriptures, designed to reproduce.
> 
> ...


IMO the whole gay gernder confusion thing is just that, something messed up in the head


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

j_seph said:


> My bible says nothing about maybe the first person was 2-sided or that Adam asked for help.
> 
> There is no way when a man feels he was supposed to be woman or a woman a man that could happen. Verse 23 says that woman was taken out of man so why would God put woman back in a man or man into a woman when he done it right the first time? My God doesn't make mistakes.



God made Adam and then God planted the Garden. There he placed the man he just created. He was to work it and take care of it. You are correct in that Adam didn't ask for a helper. Yet he was created without a helper. God decide he needed a helper.
Then God created all of the birds and animals but for Adam a suitable helper could not be found. I'm not sure if Adam figured this out or God.
                                                                          Maybe they both decided it would be best at this point in creation to get him a female human partner. So God put Adam in a deep sleep and took one of his "sides" and made a woman. Some say rib but I think the correct translation is "side" thus maybe God took his female side.

The point being Adam was created in the image of God before Eve. Eve came later after the creation of the animals and Adam not finding a helper from that part of Creation.

If he was made in the image of God, then he could have been male and female. God created man, male and female he made him in his image. If Adam was made before Eve in the Creation account and Adam was made in God's image? A helpmate could not be found in the Creation after Adam was made? But he was made in God's image which was male and female. Eve came later after no helpmate could be found. This account doesn't say if Adam could not find a partner or if God could not find him a partner. Regardless, God or Adam could not find a suitable partner from that part of creation.

God created Adam. Then God created the animals and birds, gave Adam the Law about the forbidden fruit. Then a partner could not be found so God took Adam's side and made him a partner.

Genesis 2:21
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place;
or
So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh.

At this point it is mentioned that a man must leave his parents and be united with his wife to become one flesh. Perhaps it may be a sin to remain single or to be gay.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

Maybe God created Adam to be alone for a period of time for Adam to realize he needed a partner. God knew all alone the he would make Adam a human female partner. Maybe he told Adam to look over his creation and find a helpmate knowing full well that he wouldn't be able to find one.
I can see Adam going "Hey God something ain't quite right here. I'm having trouble finding a suitable partner among these animals. They all seem to be male or female except for some fish, slugs, and lizards."


----------



## j_seph (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 2:21
> And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place;


Why I like my KJV
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

Regardless of Adam being created in the image of God before Eve, the creation account is more about heterosexuality than anti-homosexuality.

There are other verses from Paul that may be better suited for that argument.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Why I like my KJV
> 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;



The word tzela appears about 40 times in the Bible, but nowhere does it mean rib.

I don't have a particular translation I like. I generally look at all of them and use the one that backs up my side of the discussion the best.(lol)


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> At this point it is mentioned that a man must leave his parents and be united with his wife to become one flesh. Perhaps it may be a sin to remain single or to be gay.


I don’t believe that “to remain single is a sin” is the idea here. 

Think more along the lines of the intention of a proper marriage. (Not saying govt has to be involved with a piece of paper) but one man and one woman become united as one.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t believe that “to remain single is a sin” is the idea here.
> 
> Think more along the lines of the intention of a proper marriage. (Not saying govt has to be involved with a piece of paper) but one man and one woman become united as one.



I actually don't believe the verse is saying it's a sin to remain single or gay. They would both deter being fruitful and multiplying. So would birth control for that matter. Remember when birth control was wrong? Not that many years ago. 

Yes a Christian marriage is  between one man and his wife. The passage is about that unity but is it saying it's wrong to not have that unity? To remain single or to use birth control.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I actually don't believe the verse is saying it's a sin to remain single or gay. They would both deter being fruitful and multiplying. So would birth control for that matter. Remember when birth control was wrong? Not that many years ago.
> 
> Yes a Christian marriage is  between one man and his wife. The passage is about that unity but is it saying it's wrong to not have that unity? To remain single or to use birth control.


I believe there should be some type of “union”. Anything that would create a bond or commitment that says “she’s mine and I’m hers”. 

I don’t know of a reason that it would be wrong to remain single. It would be wrong for me because I’d probably be known as “my babies daddy” from more than a few , especially if birth control was wrong at the same time. 

I do remember birth control being an issue for some. But we were always told “better place it on hold if it ain’t controlled “


----------

