Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

Homosexuality In The Bible

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

It's not rocket science.  Some just can't seem to get it.

I tried to explain where he went wrong, but like you say, some people just don't get it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2018 at 9:43 PM, taxme said:

But can homosexuals have children together naturally or not? Only heterosexuals can create new life. Nature intended for a male and a female to get together and create new life.

If you are talking about the evolution of man, then yes we have evolved into sexual reproduction. I don't understand what 'intended' means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I don't understand what 'intended' means.

Apparently nature has an opinion too.

Its a classic misplacement of concreteness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

If you are talking about the evolution of man, then yes we have evolved into sexual reproduction.

Why did animals abandon asexual reproduction?  Instead of being able to reproduce by yourself - now you need a mate.

How did it happen that there became two genders - each with its own physiology? 

 

What's the evolutionary origin of sex?  Where did males and females actually come from?

   Can you explain?  Provide your source please.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, betsy said:

Why did animals abandon asexual reproduction?

The opposite has happened as well, for example Bdelloidia which have abandoned sexual reproduction for asexual reproduction and exchange genes through horizontal gene transfer.

*the links for the scientific articles are in the right column on the above link, not sure how to get them directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The opposite has happened as well, for example Bdelloidia which have abandoned sexual reproduction for asexual reproduction and exchange genes through horizontal gene transfer.

*the links for the scientific articles are in the right column on the above link, not sure how to get them directly.

It's just a hypothesis.


 

Quote

 

And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.”

 

What’s more, unisexual reproduction also suggests that the origins of sex may not have required the existence of two sexual forms, like a male and a female or an a and an α. “Given how sex works in most animals and plants, we’re fixated on the idea that sex must have involved two sexes and must have evolved to mediate genetic exchange,” says Heitman. “I’m not convinced.”

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40333/title/The-Sex-Paradox/

 

That scientific hypothesis is more in-lined with the Biblical Genesis narrativeunlike mankindGod never referred to creating genders with other creatures He created!    It's consistent with the Bible!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 7:49 PM, ?Impact said:

If you are talking about the evolution of man, then yes we have evolved into sexual reproduction.

They don't know.

But, if I'm an evolutionist - basing it from what science is saying -  I'll have to admit that whoever wrote Genesis, surely got it consistent with modern science.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 2:49 AM, betsy said:

They don't know.

But, if I'm an evolutionist - basing it from what science is saying -  I'll have to admit that whoever wrote Genesis, surely got it consistent with modern science.

And yet the inconsistencies keep blowing scientists minds never mind blowing more holes through the shreds of Genesis.  I bet even God herself hasn't heard of the Asian Sheepshead Wrasse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

And yet the inconsistencies keep blowing scientists minds never mind blowing more holes through the shreds of Genesis.  I bet even God herself hasn't heard of the Asian Sheepshead Wrasse

:rolleyes:

What inconsistencies?  How do you know?  What's to be taken literally, or figuratively?

Two hundred years ago - did anyone think of an expanding universe, as described?  You do know that the Bible isn't meant to be a science book, right?  And yet, some of its writings are being proven true by science.  Big difference.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

What inconsistencies?  How do you know?  What's to be taken literally, or figuratively?

Two hundred years ago - did anyone think of an expanding universe, as described?  You do know that the Bible isn't meant to be a science book, right?  And yet, some of its writings are being proven true by science.  Big difference.

Did the ancient Jews have a concept like 'homosexuality' rather than just certain kinds of proscribed behaviour, and if so, why should we care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Penderyn said:

Did the ancient Jews have a concept like 'homosexuality' rather than just certain kinds of proscribed behaviour, and if so, why should we care?

Didn't homosexuality exist in ancient times?

If you don't care at all....why on earth are you responding to this topic?  Read the title. 

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, betsy said:

Didn't homosexuality exist in ancient times?

If you don't care at all....why on earth are you responding to this topic?  Read the title. .

 

 

 

No, of course it didn't.   That there are special kinds of human beings called 'homosexuals' is a modern concept.   It is as silly to attempt to force modern concepts on the past as it is to enforce Jewsish  tribal religion of the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:

No, of course it didn't.  

So, sexual acts between same-sex didn't exist in ancient times?   Prove it.  Cite your source.

 

 

Quote

That there are special kinds of human beings called 'homosexuals' is a modern concept.   It is as silly to attempt to force modern concepts on the past as it is to enforce Jewsish  tribal religion of the present.

The term "homosexual,"  that describes same-sex sexual act,  may be a modern term - but that does not eliminate the kind of act that's defined by it!  Good grief!

 

The term homosexual may not have existed in ancient times - so do hebephilia ( persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent (early adolescent) children which is typically ages 11–14),    and Ephebophilia (sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19)!  They're modern terms!

 

 

But, that doesn't mean there were no sexual acts between adult males and pubescent/adolecents!

 

 

Quote

Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged romantic relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos) usually in his teens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

 

 

It's not politically correct to associate homosexuality with pederasty!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

So, sexual acts between same-sex didn't exist in ancient times?   Prove it.  Cite your source.

 

 

The term "homosexual,"  that describes same-sex sexual act,  may be a modern term - but that does not eliminate the kind of act that's defined by it!  Good grief!

'Homosexual behaviour'suggests there are special kinds of people called homosexuals.    'Buggery' means anyone can go in for certain kinds of behaviour.   Trying to force the past into our current cranks destroys all understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

'Homosexual behaviour'suggests there are special kinds of people called homosexuals.    'Buggery' means anyone can go in for certain kinds of behaviour.   Trying to force the past into our current cranks destroys all understanding.

I edited and added above.  Read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

'Homosexual behaviour'suggests there are special kinds of people called homosexuals.    'Buggery' means anyone can go in for certain kinds of behaviour.   Trying to force the past into our current cranks destroys all understanding.

Who's talking about buggery? 

Anal sex does not mean it's exclusively for males only - like as if only a male has an anus.

We're talking abut homosexuality!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, betsy said:

Who's talking about buggery? 

Anal sex does not mean it's exclusively for males only - like as if only a male has an anus.

We're talking abut homosexuality!

 

You are.    In Classical Athens, romantic sexual friendship plus between man and adolescent boy, was great - and highly philosophical - but nobody talked about 'homosexuals'.    Nobody had such a concept until very much later, and it was very recently indeed that anyone saw serious connection between it and female one-sex behaviour, and not many talked about the female version at all - they talked about buggery, a criminal offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 2:56 AM, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

What inconsistencies?

The transgendered fish I pointed out to you.

Maybe you regard fish as rabbits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

You are.    In Classical Athens, romantic sexual friendship plus between man and adolescent boy, was great - and highly philosophical - but nobody talked about 'homosexuals'.    Nobody had such a concept until very much later, and it was very recently indeed that anyone saw serious connection between it and female one-sex behaviour, and not many talked about the female version at all - they talked about buggery, a criminal offense.

Read my response to you above.  You can't just go on like as if nothing was explained about that....and ignore given materials.  Otherwise, we're done!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The transgendered fish I pointed out to you.

Maybe you regard fish as rabbits.

Expand.  It's been a while.... I don't remember what you're on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, betsy said:

Read my response to you above.  You can't just go on like as if nothing was explained about that....and ignore given materials.  Otherwise, we're done!

How can I bear that dreadful fate?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, betsy said:

Expand.  It's been a while.... I don't remember what you're on about.

Some Christians used to regard rabbits as a type of fish - consistent with other delusions I suppose.

In any case the transgendered fish I pointed out still seems rather incongruous with Genesis, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2018 at 12:27 PM, eyeball said:

Some Christians used to regard rabbits as a type of fish - consistent with other delusions I suppose.

In any case the transgendered fish I pointed out still seems rather incongruous with Genesis, don't you think?

Some Christians don't believe in the deity of Christ.  So who cares what other folks regard! I know of a poster here who identify as a Christian, and yet he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ.  He likes the philosophy, he said. Go figure.

 

What about the transgendered fish?  In what way is it "incongruous" with Genesis?

Why don't you explain? 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, betsy said:

What about the transgendered fish?  In what way is it "incongruous" with Genesis?

Why don't you explain? 

You know you're right Adam reproduced asexually too when you really think about it.  What spawned his daughters-in-law is anyone's guess however.

I pretty sure Noah would have been flummoxed by the Wrasse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...