Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably because there is nothing wrong with them, unlike pedophiles.
 
I’ve completely lost track of the conversation, so I’m confused how this came in.
 
I know it is not inherently idolatrous. Yes he speaks of the Romans, what they did, and their sins. Their sins were idolatry and also Homosexual sex was among the others. Homosexual sex is still shown as sinful and I still have yet to find a verse where it says that homosexual sex is morally acceptable providing that no idolatry is present.
 
Last edited:
You won’t find an outright endorsement of gay sex in the bible beyond the probable intention of it between David and Jonathan for this reason: as I’ve stated before sex in the ancient world was just sex. There wasn’t really a dividing line between gays and straights until recently. That’s why Paul’s word for it in Greek is a hybrid he made up on his own: there wasn’t one for that specific purpose. Nowhere in the text does it say that gay sex is immoral beyond its condemnation of its use for pagan rites by way of context. To say otherwise is to deny that there is no logical reason for it to be so. God has a purpose for everything and just saying he considers gay sex an abomination for no reason other than it exists is not a reason as it leaves the question as to why. The answer to that is that in the context of pagan ritual, it is the defiling of the body for the sake of idolatry. It is to soil the soul within for the sake of another god. This is also a problem that we run into with Paul. Christ teaches that “It is not the thing that enters the mouth that defiles a man, but the thing that proceeds from the mouth that defiles a man.” It is his actions that harm others that defiles him. In that context even temple sex doesn’t do so. This is why Paul needs to be read carefully. He’s the most flawed of the Apostles as his former prosecutorial role comes though here. As such he can’t be read directly.
 
Andy_82 said:
Because, it was used as a matter of pagan goddess worship.
Click to expand...
Same sex sexual relations are condemned “in themselves”. That’s the meaning of intrinsically evil. If matters not why it is done - the act itself is condemned.
 
No they are not Rau. The purpose behind them in the context in which the bible typically speaks of such is that the idolatry they are being used for is. As I just discussed with Joe, there has to be a practical reason for something to be in the text. Just saying gay sex is bad is not a reason.
 
DaddyGirl said:
If there is indeed a god who made people and if this god doesn’t make mistakes, does it not occur to you that this god made people with both heterosexual and homosexual orientations on purpose, with neither needing to be “healed” of it?
Click to expand...
No, not any more than God intends terrible illness and war and famine to beset his children.
 
Andy_82 said:
The purpose behind them in the context in which the bible typically speaks of such is that the idolatry they are being used for is.
Click to expand...
If you wish to manufacture your own theology, that’s up to you.
 
Andy_82 said:
You’re doing that by not fully interpreting the text. Not me.
Click to expand...
As Prodigal said, you must be a very unique Bible Scholar. :roll_eyes: This new reading of the “context” seems terribly recent.:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Once again, read this other thread please. It’s got some good stuff and has some stuff about Paul that is rather surprising
40.png
Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn shrine prostitution or same sex intercourse? Or both? Sacred Scripture
I don’t think one would necessarily exclude the other, so I’m inclined to agree.
Click to expand...
Sorry adamhovey1988 about this again
 
Last edited:
cause it’s their free will, and even God cannot force people who dont wanna help themselves…disgusting sins like those are the worst
 
It isn’t, actually. In the very early church this was understood as there were the other letters of the Apostles and the cultural context was still relevant. We lost that when Constantine outlawed all texts beyond what he wished canonized and so began the slide into further errancy. Over the next thousand years issues related to sex were and weren’t persecuted per what the powers that were wished there to be done. King James of England was a massively gay man. Yet, despite everyone knowing it was left alone. Reason being few actually cared until about 100 years after his version of the bible and its various errors became widely held as truth. This isn’t a new reading of the text. It’s the process of rediscovering it from the ashes of fundamentalism. Of which I am far from alone.
 
Joe, Vouthon makes my argument exactly there. He bases his whole demi thesis upon Paul’s argument being based upon temple sex that the Wisdom of Solomon discusses the Canaanites performing. That is the bend for all the bible’s teaching against it: gay temple sex is bad. It doesn’t address gay sex as gay love.
 
Christ disagrees with Paul with his statement about what goes into a man’s mouth not defiling him. But, what comes out of it that does. That teaching goes for many things and means that Jesus himself wouldn’t have condemned a man for having been engaged in temple sex. Paul, the former persecutor, however, would. What a man does to others defiles him. Not what he does to himself. This is why a person with a giant tattoo isn’t destined for hell or a person that eats pork is either. The OT declares both as forms of defilement. Christ, says otherwise.
 
The reason for that is the nature of the rite: if a husband wished to conceive or a man were to wish for some other favor by invoking the use of Ishtar, he’d have sex with a male priest and that priest by way of, ahem, his deposit would act as a conduit between he and the goddess. He was literally leaving his natural wife for a goddess. That is what is unnatural here. He was leaving not just the woman. But, God in the process of going into this gay sex ritual. Often times this meant people being desperate and they’d often try more and more by way of this rite.
 
Andy_82 said:
That is what is unnatural here
Click to expand...
Yes. They committed Homosexual acts which is leaving the natural act of child birth created by God, for another man where children cannot be created. Homosexual acts are against God’s way of creation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top