God created sin - Change my mind

That's nonsense. Rare genetic disorders do not constitute wholesale sexual deviancy. And Jesus love for a Disciple is love, and nothing else. We all come to life the same, thru the marriage/union of a man and a woman. And we are all born chaste and virgin. That is the blueprint for our behavior in following. Which is to remain virtuous, marry the other gender, and have a family. Nobody is born promiscuous, sexually deviant adults. Homosexuality is clearly a lie at odds with reality.

 

So why didn't Jesus love a woman instead of one particular disciple who laid on his breast?
And why didn't he say anything about homosexuality except to ask his followers to accept that some men don't marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs, and presumably why he didn't marry a woman and preferred to love a particular disciple?

 

Gods there is so much wrong here. First, there is really nothing to indicate whether Jesus was straight, gay, bi, or even asexual. The actions you are ascribing to homosexuality, are only seen as such through the eyes of the modern western culture. There are many cultures, even today, where males holding hands is just a sign of friendship and not sexual attraction.

Secondly homosexuality is not part of the intersex conditions, which is.not a spectrum. Intersex, now being called Differential Sexual Development (DSD), refers to a grouping of various conditions that affect biological presentation, ranging from CAIS, where an XY person is born with female genitalia, to slight variations such as the ureathal opening of a penis being on the shaft and not the head. These conditions do not affect what one is sexually attracted to.

 

Book, chapter and verse please.

 

Matthew 19:12.

 

The bible, however, doesn't describe Jesus as a heterosexual, given that he wasn't married to a women when he was ~30 years old.

Homosexuality is still just a natural variation in the human spectrum, and the bible only refers to anal sex of women and men as being vile and unseemly and as not the natural use of the woman (Romans 1:26-27). And as Jesus asked his followers to accept, we don't choose our sexual orientation, we are born that way as often observed in the effeminate mannerisms of pre-pubescent homosexuals.

 

Again, why try to avoid the subject? The discussion is about sin, not which particular version of it is sacred in your heart. Making an assertion absent any possible ability to substantiate it isn't a new tactic, just more a willingness to push flame bait against folks who you believe will fall for it. In the end, does it matter that Jesus loved everyone? In your world, it sure seems that it doesn't matter at all. Only the sliver of objectification you can derive from your assertion that makes you feel more complete in your world.

 

Which says nothing of his sexual orientation, which is who/what one is sexually attracted to. Even more so when you realized that even gay men or women would marry and procreate because it was expected, regardless of what their actual sexual attractions were. Keep in mind that sexual orientation is attraction not action.

Agreed, but it's of the orientation spectrum, and not the gender spectrum, nor of the intersex grouping (which is not a spectrum)

I'll double check the verse later, but there are questions on some of the translations, especially any based on the KJV. Further, the term sodomy was not limited to anal, but included any penetration other than PiV that involved genitals.

Masculine and feminine mannerisms are social constructs, as shown by how they continually change over time. Beyond that I agree. Your biggest errors were in the assumption without support on the orientation of Jesus, and conflating sexual orientation with the various intersex conditions.

 

And sin is just subjective not objective - and the bible doesn't say it is a sin to be homosexual.
Nor was it a sin for Cainan to kill his brother Abel and for Noah's father to kill a young bloke (Genesis 4). or for Joshua et al to butcher all the women & children in Jericho & Ai & Hebron and steal their land.
And it wasn't a sin for Abraham and Noah to have sex with their sisters, or for Lot to sexually assault his daughters in a cave.

 

Point of order. The daughters were the ones sexually assaulting their father.

 

So how would they be able to maintain his erection if he was completely drunk and had brewers droop. And how did they manage to make him ejaculate which coincided with their ovulations, or did they use electro-ejaculators and turkey basters to inseminate themselves.

Or did Lot lie about sexual assaulting them many times when he later told the story? Or is the story just fictional.

Either way it wasn't a sin since the ten commandments etc are just man-made and didn't apply to them.

 

John simply says ' the disciple Jesus loved'. As far as I am aware 'laid on his breast' is simply from one painting which shows a person leaning on Jesus shoulder. Most other artists do not show that feature. And the person could be Mary Magdalene. A full illustration of that picture shows 13 people. The only one without a beard and with womens features is the person leaning on Jesus.
It would be very unusual for a man of Jesus age and upbringing to be unmarried in those days.
Of course I don't believe that Jesus was any more than a Jewish preacher raised to divinity by the Gospel writers. The Nativity stories can be shown to be cobbled together and both contradict the other and there are problems with the Trial and crucifixion story against the background of the day.

 

But where does the bible say that he was married to a woman, or that Mary Magdalene was at the last supper.

And Jesus only claimed to be prophet even though his parents and family didn't believe him. And he didn't claim to be without sin. Nor did he say that he wanted to be executed by the Romans for sedition in order to do the time for other people's crimes, before he was resuscitated by Joseph and Nicodemus with the help of Aloe vera and other medications.

 

John 21:20 says the particular disciple he loved "leaned on his breast".

 

That's a myth. Males can achieve erections when drunk, asleep (not REM stage), or even unconscious. Erections are triggered by stimuli.

Pure blind luck, they knew their cycles, or they did it more than once.

I didn't address this point.

 

So how did they get their geriatric father to ejaculate, and did they use an electro-ejaculator and turkey basters to inseminate themselves? Or did Lot sexually assault them more than once?
Or is it just a fictional story based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini which destroyed some Minoan towns, and like the story about Atlantis which is probably also based on the explosive eruption of Santorini, and is probably also described in the Exodus story.
Either way the story says nothing at all about homosexual activities.

 

This took me a hot minute to figure out. Don't worry. You're not the first to have quote tag errors and you won't be the last

I didn't claim that there was issue if he was. I stated that you could not state whether he was or not, not even from the context of the biblical text. Had you said that it was possible for him to have been homosexual, I would have let that go. But you claimed that it was probable, which is completely different.

You have something from a medical site that shows what the usual sexual orientation of those with Swyers is? Regardless, that's still a "usually", per your words, which means that it is not actually link. A trend does not denote causation. Most cis males are heterosexual, but of the ones who are homosexual, precious few of them have any other disorder or condition which could be linked to homosexuality. Therefore sexual orientation is not linked to biological sex. The same applies to intersex conditions. There is no real link between them and sexual orientation nor gender identity.

Not exactly. That's not how language works. Despite the fact that the term sodomy was incorrectly associated with that particular event in Genesis, it's use was established as referencing sexual acts other than PiV. As a word, it didn't even exist until the 1300's. An incorrect why for a word to be used doesn't stop it from being the word that gets applied. Think of it similar to fa**ot. Originally the word meant a bundle of sticks. One could argue that it is a misnomer since homosexuality has nothing to do with bundles of sticks. But it happened and it stuck.

Further the verse in question itself simply references "natural uses" and does not list nor limit what the unnatural uses would be.

I would agree that there is no issue if he was since he didn't engage in any sex, straight or gay, at least not as recorded in the Bible. I'm not making any counter to that point. I am making a counter to the claim of probable instead of possible, as noted before.

 

Within Christianity how does God define what is and isn't sin? Only through his prophets, and particularly his prophet Christ. Within this framework then the primary source of what is and isn't sin would be the New Testament and anything else would be secondary. So, assuming we're just sticking with the facts, meaning that for someone to understand according to Christianity what sin is and isn't, there must be a written verse with in the New Testament that defines the status of a particular action being sinful or being the opposite of that, whatever Christians call it, I'm not sure. Good I guess is about as far as these folks need to go with it.

So Sin is bad and not sin is good.

Ugh, I'm sorry, I just can't. I thought to give this a serious go, but all conclusions loop around to the complete bullshit these religions so obviously are.

I've seen members here claiming to be Christians that have also claimed that their connection to God is direct and so special that other's opinions are inferior. Well, no, that's not Christian. Only through Christ can one reach the Father is Christian. That is not what this member posts. He posts about his direct connection to God. Logically therefore not Christian, eh?

Let's take your case in particular. A poly. Does not Jesus say to love one another? Well, there ya go? Wait, not so fast, didn't he also say that just lusting after your neighbor's wife was just as bad as doing the deed? But, what if you do the deed out of love, and not lust? And your neighbor is doing the deed with your wife, again, out of love and not lust?

Love = Good, Lust = Bad.

Fine for little kids I guess. Grownups buying into this crap really need to finish growing up.

Ya know what, Jesus can go f-off right on back to his desert adventure with that old Devil and leave being human to those who prefer to give it a go.

 

IOW you can only sin if you're a Christian.

 

And what would be the issue if he did engage in sex with the disciple he loved, such as mutual masturbation which is not vile and unseemly or disgusting, and therefore is not mentioned in Romans 1:26-27 or Leviticus 18:22, and given that the bible doesn't say anything at all about female homosexual activity either, since unlike female heterosexuals they do not have penetrative sex described in Romans 1:26-27 as vile and unseemly.

 

That depends on which translation you use. I use 3 different Bibles and only 1 says that. The others use the term 'leaning over'.

Your quote. And Jesus only claimed to be prophet even though his parents and family didn't believe him. And he didn't claim to be without sin. Nor did he say that he wanted to be executed by the Romans for sedition in order to do the time for other people's crimes, before he was resuscitated by Joseph and Nicodemus with the help of Aloe vera and other medications.

It is almost certain that Jesus was dead. Had he been alive when the Roman soldiers removed him from the cross and extracted the nails they would have completed the execution. Failure to carry out orders would have had severe consequences on themselves.

 

Are you referring to me here? I've made no claims of a direct connection to God. Whatever gave you the impression that I did?

 

Not true, as other religions also have things that they consider sins. Some will match with Christianity, others won't. Also many Christians view whatever as a sin, even if the person is not a Christian.

 

Any sex outside of marriage would have been seen as sinful, and as such would have negated the sinless status needed to make him the perfect sacrifice for all for eternity.