Biblical Marriage

[creed 1,819]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The brain - which is obviously a "biological element" certainly plays a dominate role in one's sexuality, which is what makes it "natural". 

Now sure what you mean by "normal relations", but homosexual relations are normal for homosexuals.

Pick provided a defining of normal relations in a previous post. Look at it at comment if you feel inclined. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, arein0 said:

This is you right? Aren't you essentially saying homosexuality is a sin?

You said God does not care about sexuality. I was saying that God does. And You mentioned forgiveness, a matter on which I agreed with you.

My point was not to establish that homosexuality is a sin. To be sure, it indeed is a sin, yes; but that was not my point. 

[arein0 1,110]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You said God does not care about sexuality. I was saying that God does. And You mentioned forgiveness, a matter on which I agreed with you.

My point was not to establish that homosexuality is a sin. To be sure, it indeed is a sin, yes; but that was not my point. 

Please just read the sermon I linked last night. He is able to communicate my thoughts more clearly than I am. 

[homersapien 12,307]

21 minutes ago, creed said:

Pick provided a defining of normal relations in a previous post. Look at it at comment if you feel inclined. 

"Normal" is ambiguous. It typically refers to commonality - as residing in the main part of the normal (bell) curve statistical distribution. 

"Natural", means something simply (always) exists as a part of nature even if not extremely common. 

(Of course there's also a rhetorical meaning in which normal implies accepted vs. non-acceptable.) 

I prefer to use the term "natural" referring to homosexuality to avoid any confusion with commonality or acceptability.

Edited June 8, 2023 by homersapien

[creed 1,819]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What if they decide not to procreate, as me and my wife did?  What about sex after menopause?

To the first sentence I would say that is not normal relations by my definition. To the second it’s none of my business. 
 

Feel free to give your definition of normal relations. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

Please just read the sermon I linked last night. He is able to communicate my thoughts more clearly than I am. 

I will. Thank you. I appreciate you providing that.

If you want to hear my thoughts communicated more clearly than I can express them here, please check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fxZa9WrZKI 

 

[I_M4_AU 9,051]

On 6/6/2023 at 11:49 PM, arein0 said:

Matthew 19:12 “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

This seems to be pretty straight forward to me.  There is acknowledgement that eunuchs were created in the womb.  The one’s made of men were usually slaves that were *made* that way to guard over harems of kings and the one’s the *made* themselves eunuchs were to serve God in a spiritual way.  It didn’t necessarily castration in those days, but celibate.  I would imagine this is where the Catholic Church doctrine for priests comes from.

Later in your discussion you interchange natural with normal and back again.  If I follow you correctly you believe what is *natural* to that person in a relationship is what is important.  Do I have this correct?

My interpretation is what is natural means what is natural in nature, not to the individual.  It is natural for a man and a woman to procreate, it is unnatural for men to lay down with men as the Bible states.  I would guess the same goes with women laying with women.

If you are using this verse to advance the trans movement this, IMO, is a terrible misinterpretation.

[arein0 1,110]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I will. Thank you. I appreciate you providing that.

If you want to hear my thoughts communicated more clearly than I can express them here, please check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fxZa9WrZKI 

 

Thanks for sharing that video. I always enjoy learning about the other perspective. I could tell within the first 10 min that he was preaching with the perspective that homosexuality is a choice, and I was validated when he said exactly that near the end. And it seems like that is the key point on why people refuse the other perspective.

If homosexuality is a choice then yeah that sermon makes sense and what I shared is grossly misrepresenting Gods will. If homosexuality is not a choice then that sermon is grossly misrepresenting Gods will.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

42 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Thanks for sharing that video. I always enjoy learning about the other perspective. I could tell within the first 10 min that he was preaching with the perspective that homosexuality is a choice, and I was validated when he said exactly that near the end. And it seems like that is the key point on why people refuse the other perspective.

If homosexuality is a choice then yeah that sermon makes sense and what I shared is grossly misrepresenting Gods will. If homosexuality is not a choice then that sermon is grossly misrepresenting Gods will.

I read the transcripts of both videos. I believe the young man has made invalid assumptions in his analysis that are essential to his argument. The normal natural behavior issue I believe has been erroneously co-opted by people like this as part of a larger rationalization argument. I could almost divide his sermon up into sections as he transitioned from intro, issue, problems, my issue with said problems, rationalization, no choice, ending with I love God, I love Jesus, I am a Christian, but I won’t stop what I am doing regardless of what the Bible or anybody else says. Saying he would be abnormal if he had relations with a woman is a bit of a stretch since that would bring him into Gods actual creation of male and female plan. This guy is leading a lot of people astray with this interpretation of homosexuality.

[arein0 1,110]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I read the transcripts of both videos. I believe the young man has made invalid assumptions in his analysis that are essential to his argument. The normal natural behavior issue I believe has been erroneously co-opted by people like this as part of a larger rationalization argument. I could almost divide his sermon up into sections as he transitioned from intro, issue, problems, my issue with said problems, rationalization, no choice, ending with I love God, I love Jesus, I am a Christian, but I won’t stop what I am doing regardless of what the Bible or anybody else says. Saying he would be abnormal if he had relations with a woman is a bit of a stretch since that would bring him into Gods actual creation of male and female plan. This guy is leading a lot of people astray with this interpretation of homosexuality.

Again, that is because you believe homosexuality is a choice where as myself, this pastor, and many others believe it is not a choice.

Again both sides of the argument hinges on if homosexuality is a choice or not. If homosexuality is not a choice, it absolutely would be abnormal for them to have heterosexual relations, just as it would be for you to have homosexual relations.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

20 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Again, that is because you believe homosexuality is a choice where as myself, this pastor, and many others believe it is not a choice.

Again both sides of the argument hinges on if homosexuality is a choice or not. If homosexuality is not a choice, it absolutely would be abnormal for them to have heterosexual relations, just as it would be for you to have homosexual relations.

There is the choice, and the choice to act on that choice. And if it is not a choice, there is still a choice to act on it, or not. The second choice. That is the selfish one. The one that causes the sin.

[arein0 1,110]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

There is the choice, and the choice to act on that choice. And if it is not a choice, there is still a choice to act on it, or not. The second choice. That is the selfish one. The one that causes the sin.

So your basically saying that if homosexuality is not a choice, then God created them destined to be alone, without love? That doesn't sound like the loving God I know.

[homersapien 12,307]

Science has proven that homosexuality is not a "choice".

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,172]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

So your basically saying that if homosexuality is not a choice, then God created them destined to be alone, without love? That doesn't sound like the loving God I know.

Not without love. Without sex. But you are right. I don’t believe He created them gay just to be alone. 

[jj3jordan 2,172]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Science has proven that homosexuality is not a "choice".

Nope. Not true.

[homersapien 12,307]

19 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nope. Not true.

Since when did you even care about science, much less understand it?

Edited June 9, 2023 by homersapien

[arein0 1,110]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Not without love. Without sex. But you are right. I don’t believe He created them gay just to be alone. 

Guess I should count myself lucky for being born heterosexual then. Oof wouldn't want to be dealt that poorly of a hand that I'm not even allowed to love the one person God created for me...

Edited June 8, 2023 by arein0

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Again both sides of the argument hinges on if homosexuality is a choice or not. If homosexuality is not a choice, it absolutely would be abnormal for them to have heterosexual relations, just as it would be for you to have homosexual relations.

Even accepting that people are born with homosexual tendencies, I am having a difficult time following the import you suggest. No one is instinctively good; all have sinful desires in their hearts; Bill may desire A, Bob may desire B; A and B can be totally different things, but both nevertheless sinful; God wants Bill to turn from A, Bob from B. Right?

What if a person has a burning lust for lower animals? Should Christians then approve that person engaging in bestiality on ground that it is not abnormal for that person?

[jj3jordan 2,172]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Since when did you care about science?

I care when the science is actually scientific.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

12 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Guess I should count myself lucky for being born heterosexual then. Oof wouldn't want to be dealt that poorly of a hand that I'm not even allowed to love the one person God created for me...

Swing and a miss again. The one person God created for you would also have to be gay, also dealt the same poor hand. But if He created gay people on purpose I guess you could call that being dealt a poor hand. 

[TexasTiger 14,523]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Swing and a miss again. The one person God created for you would also have to be gay, also dealt the same poor hand. But if He created gay people on purpose I guess you could call that being dealt a poor hand. 

God makes mistakes?

[jj3jordan 2,172]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

God makes mistakes?

Never.

[TexasTiger 14,523]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Never.

So God made gay people and they are his beloved children?

[arein0 1,110]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Swing and a miss again. The one person God created for you would also have to be gay, also dealt the same poor hand. But if He created gay people on purpose I guess you could call that being dealt a poor hand. 

Yup, we can be best friends but nothing more. Sorry life partner that God hand crafted for me, God made us so we can't have sex with each other. We must live in celibacy while the rest of the world is able to have sex with their life partner.

[CoffeeTiger 5,955]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

What if a person has a burning lust for lower animals? Should Christians then approve that person engaging in bestiality on ground that it is not abnormal for that person?

No, because the animal doesn't have the intelligence or capability to consent to sexual relationships with humans, and it is considered a form of abuse. 

Just like it's illegal to have non-consensual sex with humans or with anyone who is not capable of giving reasoned consent.