What does the Bible *really* say about same-sex relationships?

Zer0beaT said:
Isn't God just the universe? Or whatever is the heart of what created it? Is it really a man, or are the names in the bible like code names for things uncertain?

Just wondering. I've never read the bible.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to turn this into Sunday School, but the God of the Bible is more than just the God of the universe, as the universe is finite. God's kingdom extends into the larger unseen, spiritual realm that is not bound by time/space. He is an eternal being with no beginning or ending. He exists in three parts: Father, Son, and Spirit. God the Father sits on His throne and adjudicates over all that is seen and unseen. He is the judge of our world. God came to the earth in the form of man (the Son) to die as a propitiation or payment for all of our wickedness. The Son is the savior of our world and the deliverer at the time of judgement. God's Spirit is the part of God that moves upon the earth unseen to lead us to that salvation, and once "born again," He dwells within us to make us more like God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flynn
TFX said:
...Life journey...
Click to expand...

Hey TFX,

First off, thanks for the extremely detailed account of your life, your beliefs, and how you've come to the conclusions you've come to.

Secondly, I don't for a moment question your rationale, your reasoning, or you integrity. You sound like an amazing man.; someone who thinks through problems, digs in to details, cares about truth, and won't settle for "because it says so". I like that. I admire that. I respect that.

After spending a great deal of time reading through your novella, I was very, very disappointed and saddened by sweeping portions of it. I think you've been given very poor Christian examples and you've put too high a bar on your expectations for Christians as examples. I think much of your theological conclusions are devastatingly bad, but given the context - I don't think you are irrational to hold such theological conclusions. I also heard *many* assertions from you that I think are really unfair, and overly critical.

You wrote far too much for me to try to address all points, and I have a feeling - that's not something that would resonate well with you anyway... so that's not what I'll try to do.

What I would like to know from you, though, is this... are you open to a discussion and where it might lead, or is your mind made up? I wouldn't blame you if yours is (again, given the context), but I'm genuinely curious... do you have it figured out, or do you still have some exploration to go with your world view?

If you're open to discussion, I'd like to know your top three major contentions with Christianity. That's something manageable, and something digestible... or maybe even easier, what's your one, crucial, pivotal problem with theism (specifically, Christian theism)? If you can give me 1-3 major points/arguments you're comfortable discussing, I'd love to engage you on them, and see what kind of conclusions we could draw.

...and finally, consider this. It wasn't the heathens who hung Jesus on a cross....

...It was His own, chosen people...

We're not your example, and never will be. But Jesus? Well, He's the most respected, well known, most written about, and most influential person in all of history... why is that?

I'm open to talk.
 
Last edited:
Flynn asks a question.

Waits for next TFX Forum Novella lol.


Actually, I'll add one more short question. Has TFX ever considered Pantheism as opposed to Deism? Or even Ignosticism? (that's right "Ig" not "Ag")
 
Intellivision said:
Fair enough, though someone like him in a position in power can skew things on a country wide scale.

On the other hand, when it comes to bickering, village raids, church burnings, as well as wars among countries, religion is often a factor.
Click to expand...

Careful, though.

Poor social ramifications aren't a measurement for truth... a lifestyle or world view for a happy/content/stable/non-contentious society isn't necessarily a lifestyle or world view that's based on truth... and I'm more interested in truth itself, rather than in how society responds to the truth.

For example, it could be that if everyone adopted a Buddhist world-view, that the world would be a happier, more living, more peaceful place... but that wouldn't mean Buddhism is therefore true. What's best for society to flourish in peace, harmony, tranquility, joy, and happiness isn't necessarily what's true.

Besides, I'd argue in most cases the Christians or Christian events atheists like to highlight as "bad" are often people or events who are acting CONTRARY to the faith they claim to represent, not consistently with it.
 
Last edited:
But if something works and makes a functional content society, doesn't that give it some merit?

In fact, what if it was demonstrated that 2 Societies with different cultures and religions with different systems could both find happiness and a flourishing society? Would that mean both are "True" or would it instead suggest there may not be a single Absolute Path to follow.

Interestingly, I think Buddhism teaches to avoid Absolutes. Try to avoid extremes and consider following a Middle Path.
 
Videodrome said:
But if something works and makes a functional content society, doesn't that give it some merit?
Click to expand...

Merit? Perhaps... but just because something works for society, that doesn't have any barring on whether or not it's true or false.

Videodrome said:
In fact, what if it was demonstrated that 2 Societies with different cultures and religions with different systems could both find happiness and a flourishing society? Would that mean both are "True" or would it instead suggest there may not be a single Absolute Path to follow.
Click to expand...

No - I don't think so - but what it would mean is that those cultures and religions function effectively in providing happy, flourishing societies... but that would in no way (as far as I can tell) would prove that either was based on anything objectively true.

Videodrome said:
Interestingly, I think Buddhism teaches to avoid Absolutes.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then Buddhism is objectively and demonstrably false.

Consider this statement, "truth does not exist".

If the statement is false, then truth exists. If the statement is true, then truth does in fact exist, making the statement self-contradictory.

Therefore, it's absolutely true that truth exists. That is a factual, demonstrable absolute.

Videodrome said:
Try to avoid extremes and consider following a Middle Path.
Click to expand...

"Playing nice", "avoiding conflict", and "something in the middle" are comfortable positions, no taobt... but that doesn't make the positions 'true'.
 
Maybe Buddhism does not strive to be Absolutely TRUE or a strict list of commandments. It's more like a practice or method.

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change," -The 14th Dalai Lama

I think it's unnecessary to try and cram Buddhism into a Truth box where it's not even trying to be.

For example, Meditation is often practiced by Buddhists. Does that make Meditation TRUE? Well, I think that's looking at it the wrong way. It's method, or practice, or mental exercise. It's just a useful tool to quiet the mind. Demanding whether Meditation is a part of Absolute Truth is missing the point. You might as well asking a person if running for exercise is Truth.

Or ask a runner if their exercise is Truth. If they can't answer, would you denounce their running for exercise as some being False and not a part of some Absolute Objective Truth?
 
Buddhism is a religion, not a "practice".

It holds certain "truths" like any other religion.

Therefore, your analogies don't make sense.
 
Videodrome said:
Really? The way I tried to explain Meditation made no sense at all to you? You think Meditation has to be some kind of Truth not simply a method?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was on my phone and I didn't respond properly. :) Your explination of the meditation stuff made great sense.

What I meant was, you're right, meditation isn't "truth", meditation is an action.

...but Buddhism as a whole certainly subscribes to 'truths' which are not mere methods.

That said, I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means, so I'm not in a good place to argue with any real competence on the topic, but I will say that a quick scan of the Wikipedia page shows that it's clearly a religion, with truths that it holds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

My biggest problem with Buddhism (as I understand it), is that it's not a "theistic" religion, so there's no God, and no beginning of time, but that's a problem. I think that there's very good evidence both scientifically and philosophically that our universe began to exist. Time itself is not past-eternal. There was an absolute beginning. This seems to fly in the face of Buddhism.

Plus, I think God as a metaphysically necessary being is far more probable than not, given the evidence and arguments I've surfaced in this thread.

So I wouldn't subscribe to Buddhism for many reasons, but there may be other things of interest in with I don't know about. I just know that foundationally, I couldn't accept it.
 
But what if the fact that Buddhism does not have an alternative God or Creation story could make it more agreeable? Afterall, in this area they are not in conflict with the Christian God or Genesis.

I think the core of Buddhism is about cultivating wisdom, minimizing wordly suffering, and avoiding 'delusion' such as allowing one self to be unreasonably controlled by Desire, Attachment, and Anger.

The key idea here is Core Buddism. I will agree that additional ideas or even deities have probably become attached to Buddhism as it snowballs through history and more people add to it and denominations fork from it.

I think even Taoism was even the basis of Chinese Alchemy trying to create elixirs for immortality.

This effect could be called Syncretic Religion and it happens a lot. Even Voodoo is a hybrid religion including Jesus, Mary, Baron Samedi, and the Loa/Many. I'm sharing this to illustrate how the Core of Buddhism or the Core of Christianity can have weird things piled onto it.

http://www.gromambo.com/voodoo.html
 
Flynn, I'm offended you would think an atheist or non believer wouldn't consider raping a little girl wrong because we don't have "morals". That's a disgusting thing to assume and probably just more of your word play you like to do.
You can have an innate sense of right and wrong without being a believer. Obviously I wouldn't want to torture someone or kill someone, because I wouldn't want them to do that to me.
Also, just from a science view having no laws and let people kill each other at will, etc. would not be good for furthering society. You have to have laws to keep society functioning in a civil manner, but they don't have to be in the name of God.
 
Enzyme said:
Flynn, I'm offended you would think an atheist or non believer wouldn't consider raping a little girl wrong because we don't have "morals". That's a disgusting thing to assume and probably just more of your word play you like to do.
You can have an innate sense of right and wrong without being a believer. Obviously I wouldn't want to torture someone or kill someone, because I wouldn't want them to do that to me.
Also, just from a science view having no laws and let people kill each other at will, etc. would not be good for furthering society. You have to have laws to keep society functioning in a civil manner, but they don't have to be in the name of God.
Click to expand...


Religious folk have this distorted view that the morals we have, even atheist, come from god.
 
Enzyme said:
Flynn, I'm offended you would think an atheist or non believer wouldn't consider raping a little girl wrong because we don't have "morals".
Click to expand...

Enzyme, I'm sorry you've misunderstood me. I never said atheists wouldn't consider rape wrong, or that atheists don't have morals. I never said that, and that's not the claim at all.

What I said is that on an atheistic view, you can "say" or "claim" you personally think something is wrong, but there's no objective truth to anything actually being right or wrong. On atheism, there is no grounding for morality, so morality is really just 'preference'. There's no objective right or wrong. You may personally think rape is wrong, but you'd have no ground to stand on if some other culture used rape regularly. You couldn't claim that culture was any worse than the culture you adhere to... and if you did, you'd be a hypocrite, affirming objective morality with no objective source of morality.

Most atheists agree on this. Richard Dawkins, for example, specifically states there is at bottom no good, no evil, only pitiless indifference. The sole purpose for every living thing is to propagate it's DNA. That's it.

That's your view as an atheist. You cannot affirm objective morality. You can claim something's "wrong" or "right", but it's no different than if I say I like blue, and you like green. It's preference. Not fact. Mother Theresa, on your view, is no "better" a person (objectively) than Adolf Hitler. Hitler is no "worse" than anyone else morally, just "different".

That's your vie, as an atheist. It's inescapable.

But I think you and I both know that's wrong. I think you and I both agree love is better than hate. I think we both agree rape is wrong - objectively. It's just as false to say raping a child is "good" as it is to say 2+2=5. Some things at least, are truly wrong... the theist can make those claims, because God's the source of all objective good, so things *can* be truly "good" or truly "bad".

But make no mistake... I never claimed atheists cannot act morally, or that they'd say rape isn't wrong. I said that regardless of what they personally feel, on their view, nothing is objectively "good" or objectively "bad", and that just rings false with me... and with most people. Most people affirm "right" and "wrong".

Enzyme said:
That's a disgusting thing to assume and probably just more of your word play you like to do.
You can have an innate sense of right and wrong without being a believer.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. The Holy Spirit's in all of us, whether you recognize it or not. We all affirm "right" and "wrong" (even if we don't all agree)... but on the atheistic view, this moral sense is just a social, biological adaptation. Saying "rape is wrong" on this view is no different than saying "I like the color red". There's no objective truth to it, it's just a subjective 'feeling', based on evolution. Imagine for a moment you could rewind the tape of "evolution", and we evolved more like bees, where a 'queen' killed drones. Would that be objectively "wrong" to arbitrarily kill others? Well, on the atheistic view - no. It would objectively NOT be "wrong", because the concept of "good" and "evil" as such, do not exist on that world view.


Enzyme said:
Obviously I wouldn't want to torture someone or kill someone, because I wouldn't want them to do that to me.
Also, just from a science view having no laws and let people kill each other at will, etc. would not be good for furthering society. You have to have laws to keep society functioning in a civil manner, but they don't have to be in the name of God.
Click to expand...

No argument there at all. We have laws, and we have consequences to our actions in a society. That's a fact. But on the atheistic view, the man who wants to kill his child for fun - and gets away with it - hasn't done anything objectively wrong. He may have done something socially taboo, but on the atheistic view, it's not objectively wrong.

That's your view. You can't escape that.

...unless you affirm theism. The theist has a moral law giver, who's goodness flow necessarily out of Him. The theist can affirm objective morality. The theist can say, "a culture that rapes their children is wrong to do so. Objectively." ... The atheist cannot affirm that.
 
Qbert said:
Religious folk have this distorted view that the morals we have, even atheist, come from god.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's really the other way around.

Atheists attack a straw man argument, and this is a perfect example. Christians don't claim atheists have no morals, or insufficient morals... That's just the atheist falsely asserting a claim that was never made.

The theist and the intellectual atheist agree. Without God, objective morality does not exist. The problem is, we all affirm thing to be objectively "good" (like love), and we all affirm some things to be truly objectively wrong (like child rape for fun)... But the atheist has to reject that moral sense, and acknowledge that on an atheistic world view, objective morality simply doesn't exist.

Atheist philosophers, and atheist scientists will agree on this. There's a consensus among the community.
 
...So if you think rape is truly wrong, you should reconsider theism.
 
For consideration:

Book of Numbers 15 : 32-36

15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
 
Videodrome said:
Click to expand...


Sam Harrris' entire argument stems from a subjective claim.

Sam's entire case falls apart if you don't affirm that the worst possible world is one with maximal suffering... And anything we can do to avoid that world is therefore "good"... But that's just as subjective a stance as any other atheistic stance on morality...

This is why Sam's work here is highly controversial, and also widely discredited among atheists and theists alike.
 
Sam Harris is truly more of an Ignostic. He just shows up under the banner of Atheism because it's a more widely used and understood term.

I think he does draw an honest analogy between something as simple as having a Healthy Body or a Healthy Society. Or even how to win a game of Chess even by breaking the general rule of trying not to lose the Queen.

Anyway, if there really was such a thing as your Objective Morality, then why doesn't everyone in this forum have an identical sense of Morality? Proving this should be as easy as proving simple Arithmetic. As you may say, we all agree that 2+2=4. Ask us deep moral questions though and you will get different answers.

Or maybe not all humans innately get perfectly imbued with this Objective Moral Code from God in their conscience. So we all have to be dragged through the Bible learning it. However, people who read the Bible may interpret it differently. Some may be fundamentalist while others are more liberal. The more someone picks at this idea, the more this Absolute Objective Morality seems elusive and abstract.

Also, does the Bible and Absolute Morality keep up with the times? Is this applicable to Video Game Violence? Is it Objectively Moral or Immoral if I play Grand Theft Auto 5?
 
Last edited:
Videodrome said:
Sam Harris is truly more of an Ignostic. He just shows up under the banner of Atheism because it's a more widely used and understood term.
Click to expand...

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens

He's an atheist. A stark atheist. It's simply false to claim he's closer to agnosticism. He truly affirms God doesn't exist, and doesn't believe in a God of any kind.

Videodrome said:
I think he does draw an honest analogy between something as simple as having a Healthy Body or a Healthy Society. Or even how to win a game of Chess even by breaking the general rule of trying not to lose the Queen.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but who says a "healthy society" is objectively "Good"? That's just an opinion... and that's why his view is highly controversial, and widely discredited among both atheists and theists. Dawkin's wouldn't agree with him, for example.

Videodrome said:
Anyway, if there really was such a thing as your Objective Morality, then why doesn't everyone in this forum have an identical sense of Morality?
Click to expand...

Why doesn't science always agree?

We're imperfect. We always will be. But just because we struggle to know firmly objectively what's true doesn't mean objective truth doesn't exist. In fact, as I mentioned before, we can positively prove objective truth *DOES* in fact exist. Some things are true, some things are false. Relativism is provably false.

Videodrome said:
Proving this should be as easy as proving simple Arithmetic. As you may say, we all agree that 2+2=4.
Click to expand...

Tell me the answer to this:
2 + 2

The answer is 4.

Now tell me the answer to this (without looking it up):
37750c76ae1b526bb5776d3ada4127d6.png


It has a factual, demonstrable solution. I don't know what it is, but it exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me the answer to this:
is it wrong to rape a child for fun?

The answer is yes.

Now tell me the answer to this:
You're being held captive against your will. Your daughter is about to be raped, flogged, and crucified in front of you, her mother, and her husband and their children. The only way for you to stop it is to rape another woman in front of her son.

Can you honestly tell me you know the right answer to that?

Videodrome said:
Ask us deep moral questions though and you will get different answers.
Click to expand...

Indeed... which is why it's so crucial to rely not on our own selves and our own experiences, but to dig into the Word, listen to the Holy Spirit, and trust that God will make things work together for good for those who are called according to his purposes.

Videodrome said:
Or maybe not all humans innately get perfectly imbued with this Objective Moral Code from God in their conscience. So we all have to be dragged through the Bible learning it. However, people who read the Bible may interpret it differently. Some may be fundamentalist while others are more liberal. The more someone picks at this idea, the more this Absolute Objective Morality seems elusive and abstract.
Click to expand...

Now, notice I don't say "absolute" morality, I say "objective". Absolute morality implies that (formulaically) it's *always wrong to kill*, for example, but that may not be true. There may be times when killing is the moral decision. That's why we say "objective morality", because it means that there is objectively a right or wrong decision when faced with moral puzzles. It doesn't mean anyone will always know the answer, but it does mean that we can affirm raping for fun is wrong, and loving a child is truly better than torturing it... which (again) the atheist cannot affirm.

Videodrome said:
Also, does the Bible and Absolute Morality keep up with the times? Is this applicable to Video Game Violence? Is it Objectively Moral or Immoral if I play Grand Theft Auto 5?
Click to expand...

Great question. When I consult the Bible, pray with others, and consider the freedom Christ's given us, I think it all depends on the variables in play. It may not be wrong at all for person A to play GTA5, but for person B, it might be devastatingly terrible. For example, you don't give a shot of vodka to an alcoholic who's trying their best to quit, in order to save their family, marriage, and job. You encourage them to stay away from it... but a person who doesn't tend to drink much, and isn't addicted may have no problems living consistently with Biblical principles while having a drink here and there.

So yes, objective morality keeps up with the times, but it's different from absolute morality.
 
Last edited:
I said Sam Harris was Ignostic, not Agnostic.

It also sounds like your saying Morality is flexible depending on the situation. Why can't it be flexible depending on a person's sexual orientation?
 
Last edited:
Videodrome said:
I said Sam Harris was Ignostic, not Agnostic.?
Click to expand...

Ah, I misread. I rarely see people use the term ignostic. :) Ignostic is not antithetical to atheism, though, and Sam Harris has proclaimed his atheistic stance in interviews and debates I've watched with him. So yes, we're both right. :)

Videodrome said:
It also sounds like your saying Morality is flexible depending on the situation. Why can't it be flexible depending on a person's sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

It's not that morality is 'flexible' in the way you describe, as if to say that it's somehow subjective... but it is very complex. Complexity does not entail flexibility.

As the original video in this thread shows (and quite clearly so), homosexual acts between humans is morally wrong. It's an abomination. It's as clear as 2+2=4... but (again) the Bible in no way condemns the PERSON for their ORIENTATION. God loves everyone. My friends who are gay are loved by God just as much as anyone else... and non-gay Christians who engage in other sinful acts like pre-marital sex, or lust are no better than the homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex.

Sin is sin. We all do it. No one is inherently 'better', or 'more valuable', or 'worse', or 'less valuable'... God loves us all, and God hates all sin. He loves all of us, and hates that we turn against Him to do our own thing... but thank God Jesus paid our debts there, so we could be in right standing with God despite our sins... and brother, we all need it. Gay, straight, bi - we all need it.

That said, there are other moral scenarios which are not so clear, but homosexual behaviors between humans are clearly not one of the gray areas, in terms of Biblical teachings among Christians.
 
Last edited:
I have to ask if anybody else really watched that whole 2 hour video because i don't plan to. I need serious persuading before watching someone's 2 hour Youtube video.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back