Nature and religion are often at odds with each other, Cal. IMHO, sexuality is a personal and private matter that becomes a social dilemma not because something intrinsic in us makes it so, but because we are conditioned by the belief system around us to make it a dilemma.

I know I speak as an agnostic. My own journey to this realization came over the course of my life. That I cannot follow man-made religion, that if there is a God, He or She is not what man has made him to be. Man is selfish. Man created the divine in his own image. Not the other way around. I do not question the faith of others. They need it so be it. I do not. And sexuality has nothing to do with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, or any of the faiths. It is sexuality. 

sexuality is a personal and private matter

I find both sexuality and religion (or lack there of it) to be of a personal matter. For myself I am always puzzled as to how both have become the focus of the public. What folks do in the privacy of their own environs or minds is of no concern to me as long as it harms no others.

And sexuality has nothing to do with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, or any of the faiths. It is sexuality. 

I'd say we agree, you just said it more eloquently than I.

My novice attempt at poetry above is enjoyable. 

That I cannot follow man-made religion

Good day, Neetu! I do not have a "church-home" as the saying goes in these parts. However, I can understand how at the intersection of people, belief, doctrine, organization, and time being a critical factor—religion happens. Groups formulate what they are about; what they stand for (abide); and, what they oppose. Actually, within the group assent is high and across the board ("Like minds think alike.") Problems manifest when outsiders want "in."

The Christian faith is a colossus that welcomes people through its front doors of all ages and types. Structure and rules are an essential requirement.

IMAGINE.           It's All Gone.            Being Strong!

Why is there a conflict between your faith and your sexual orientation?   Do you believe homosexuality (the orientation - your very nature - the way God made you per your beliefs) is a sin?

Is it not possible to be Christian while gay?   To be true to your nature while still being a good Christian?

Friend TiG, good questions all! Firstly, let me reach backward to NV. There for a trying period of five years on NV and MSNBC, you may partially recall, I 'spoke out' against conservative critics and their points of view on the topic of the LGBTQ community. It was the right thing to do! I celebrated in 2015 when the opposing arguments against same-sex marriage evaporated under positive pressure from the Obama WH, DOJ and the actions of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, to your first question, "Why is there a conflict between your faith and your sexual orientation?" Personally, and I want to stipulate this is just for me and maybe some others who share my view. Frankly,  I have not settled the question emphatically that my Faith and homosexuality are compatible. For decades I have heard all the arguments for and against and still the writings are what they are. Static and Closed. It is simply not in there at the end of the day. On the other-hand, my faith walk fulfills me. Moreover, I am satisfied in seeing others have their freedoms and privileges presented to them. In order that they may decide for themselves what is right or wrong regarding the Christian faith.

Thirdly, your second question, "Do you believe homosexuality (the orientation - your very nature - the way God made you per your beliefs) is a sin? I believe the Bible leaves the question in a quandary. Furthermore, I believe that our society and culture for most of my long life short-changed me, and millions of others like me, on a daily basis when I, we, were group blackballed, grossly maltreated, punched, mocked, kicked, and left out of what was perceived to be normal and gentle society. All of this 'radiating and soothing warmth" is relatively new to most places in this country. If homosexuality was never a sin in this country, then heterosexuals as a group owe homosexuals 'reparations.'

As a homosexual, which I am, am I sinful? No, of course not. Have I done some things being homosexual that biblically can be considered sinful? Most definitely.

Fourthly, your third question, "Is it not possible to be Christian while gay?" Yes, it is possible to be a Christian and homosexual, of course alone, and in marriage. I sometimes dwell on the negative thought that our conservative leaders and "red-staters" fought to keep the status quo of homosexuals as 'aliens' to marriage. Because fornication is explicitly against Church doctrine and the Words of Jesus Christ. If homosexuals are legally and culturally denied marriage, by default the entire lot of them are fornicators.

Fifthly, and lastly, your fourth question, "To be true to your nature while still being a good Christian?" In the article above,  I explain that my faith is not a counterfeit. I put in the effort to be true to my self and my wishes in the past and in the present. I'd like to think I will continue to do so. Only time can tell what comes at us.

I will share my emotions of the 2015 Supreme Court decision. There was a great sigh of relief that something wonderful had been unburdened— same-sex marriage. And, there was a "follow-up" question mark—what now? Do I get back out there to "approve" marriage by practice?!! Well, no, I reminded myself that I only have to be TRUE to myself. It is only right that homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as other legal citizens, but as certain folks on our cable news (e.g., Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper) demonstrate there is no need to 'rush.'

For decades I have heard all the arguments for and against and still the writings are what they are.

This of course goes back to the Bible (and you know my views there but let's go with the assumption that the Bible is as you see it).   We know the Bible disapproves of homosexuality (OT calls for death sentence;  NT stops at simply a sin).   The general question now is this:  is the Bible as written and as interpreted 100% correct?    In particular, is it possible that what is read -how it is interpreted- in the Bible regarding homosexuality is not precisely the divine Word of God?

If you see the possibility then the next step is reasoning through this.   How could a loving God create human beings with a homosexual orientation, a sex drive, a need for intimacy, etc. and then make it a sin for them to be themselves?  To sin simply by being intimate with another willing adult human being.  Note that I am exclusively referring to that which is part of the human being's nature - not anything that is learned.   Sexual orientation is not a choice - it is how one is born.   Homosexuality is God's choice.

This then leads to my question.   Given there is demonstrably no single truth to be found - that the truth of God (and thus God's demands) is ultimately a personal conclusion (as evidenced by the profound lack of agreement as soon at the situation starts getting nuanced) why not just be a good person, do not harm anyone else, support your faith (in general) and be yourself?   

I see probably only two questions here. So let me deal with them in my own manner. For we have been tip-toeing or kicking it aside for many months.

1.  What is a Christian anyway? A Christian is someone who beliefs, trusts in, and finds sufficiency and assurances in the words of Jesus Christ as handed down by Apostles.

A.  Which Bible is the Bible? The Bible you read. This Book has been translated into an indefinite set of languages. Each language adding or subtracting subtle differences, for this is how languages operate. As a result, the bible one reads as opposed to the one you do not read is the Bible.

2.  What does it mean to be spiritually, "Called"? The New Testament writers under their pseudonyms express how they were called into spiritual belief, service, and faith. Scripturally, the process refers to kings, prophets, apostles, and followers who are spiritually anointed and "awaken."

Those individuals who attempt to serve in their flesh or natural man or woman - have more approximately a social 'calling' (for example, family members and church visitors); those who are spiritually Born Again serve in their spirit as spirit-filled men and women. Spiritually Born Again believers have an unction to serve. Moreover, this 'call' extends well beyond simple life in the flesh.

Why not just be a good person, do not harm anyone else, support your faith (in general) and be yourself?

Friend TiG, I was a good person, naturally. I can assure you I am an even better person, spiritually. That is, I can see my earlier 'flaws' better now. I do not wish to impress upon you that I was a "monster," criminal, or even 'evil-doer' before faith in God. Still, there are tangible changes in my living. I can tell. I feel confident, I am not the first person to share such deep statements in your presence.

Take into account the lives of the two men in the article above. . . . Both compelled to a higher calling in belief of God. Moreover, I have no issue with their calling!

Of course you are a good person.   So why not just be that good person, support your faith (in general - in spirit) and be your natural self?   Given there is no way to know what God really wants (especially to such a level of specificity as one's sexual orientation) why not stick with the basics of your faith and assume that God approves of the nature He placed in His creations.

In particular, is it possible that what is read -how it is interpreted- in the Bible regarding homosexuality is not precisely the divine Word of God?

Ignoring the specifics of the dogma for the moment it's pretty clear that the concept of homosexuality didn't even exist in western culture until the mid to late 1800s, ie that some folks are wired to have an innate same-sex attraction just as most folks are wired for opposite-sex attraction while others are attracted to both sexes.    Prior to that time gays were assumed just to be straights who were "acting badly."   So bible-thumpers who interpret certain biblical passages as condemning gays (or condemning sex between gays) are presumptively wrong even before one considers the contextual or translational issues simply because the concept didn't exist at the time.

But while the context of these passages would indicate they weren't necessarily directed against gays per se but against people acting against their nature or against priests who violate certain arbitrary "holiness codes", I think there's very little doubt that the profoundly misogynistic and patriarchal Bronze-age Hebrew culture which created that Abrahamic / Christian mythology was also profoundly homophobic.    Those traits always seem to be correlated.   

So the question I'd have for a gay Christian is why would you internalize or accept that anti-gay bigotry if you'd reject the rather archaic and primitive messages of misogyny and patriarchy?     Should a woman be forced to marry her rapist or be sold by her father into a marriage?   Should women but not men be silent in church?    I'd suggest that it's not a coincidence that the homophobic Christian & Jewish cults which exist today, ie the SBC, RCC, Orthodox, etc, are also profoundly misogynistic and patriarchal.   So why worry about them if you reject the rest of the hate they preach?     It's also not a coincidence that the cults which have evolved on LGBT issues first evolved on gender issues.

be your natural self

I have supported and uplifted the same social policies, attitudes, and behaviors consistently since we first encountered each other, no? It would take extraordinary effort to last out as a fraud this long, my friend! As for all other homosexuals, let them be true to themselves as well.

bible-thumpers

Shrekk! All I get is "bible-thumpers" from your comment. Pity, what a waste of so much type.

Shrekk! All I get is "bible-thumpers" from your comment. Pity, what a waste of so much type.

Would you have preferred homophobic bible-babblers?

Very nicely said.

Less type, more pity.

It would take extraordinary effort to last out as a fraud this long

You think my comment was suggesting you are a fraud??   

It was more like ‘God probably did not create you with the intent that you must be alone - no intimate partner’.

Friend TiG, I have had sexual intimacy and romantic attachments aplenty over the course of my life. If I am being honest, and I am, I no longer view myself through an sexual/intimacy lens.

Nevertheless, aside from sexual activity, "romantic attachment" used in the article by Josh Weed and his wife Lolly, requires some further consideration.  

There are many of us who deliberately 'check the box' to live alone with friends and surrounding family. For example, widow/ers, singles, priests, nuns, elderly, disabled, and a host of "Uninterested." It actually can work for the appropriate people.

The operative word being, "Choice." I do not suffer well my fellow believers who 'straitjacket' homosexuals and others to their biases, prejudices, phobias, or ignorance. 

I guess you are saying that nothing is stopping you from having an intimate relationship with another human being (nowadays) but that you simply do not wish to have such a relationship?   That is, you are not suppressing your own wishes/desires because of your beliefs but rather that you simply have no interest in relationships?

Actually, it is more complex than simple assent. Faith interlaces and courses through 99.9 percent of what thinking believers do on a daily basis. Subsequently, of course, there is interplay between spiritual 'norms,' and social, biological, cultural, behaviors. Let's not kid one another, this may be where it gets confusing for you, informed believers strive to live up to a standard daily.

Each day is a fragment of the continuing faith journey. Every day we expect by faith to receive, and we do receive, spiritual power for the day. There is an incident playing around just out of bounds of my mind of something which happens to me not long ago. My reaction to the situation was, . . . priceless. I may share it if asked. If I feel it appropriate.

TiG, for the record, not everything on my blogs have to be all about me. There are surely interesting items in the articles and corresponding subject matter.  Not faulting you or anyone: Just wanted to make that option clear.

Incidentally, last month I gave my personal reasons for wanting an end to personal sexual intimacy in my article: The One About FAITH .

The reason:  goes against your religious beliefs.    That is what I got from your prior article (and this current discussion).

Before I try to answer, let me ask you to specify how you mean, "The reason:  goes against your religious beliefs."

Reverend Elder Troy Perry is quite an interesting personality. His videography shows firm convictions. Rev. Perry in 1968, stood before the supreme 'toro' of hetero-spirituality and proceeded to swing himself up on its back and ride into its stall.  I see him standing before his Lord and Savior naked as he is. Rise or fall. Much respect to that!

Before I try to answer, let me ask you to specify how you mean, "The reason:  goes against your religious beliefs."

I have answered this before but to be clear this is my answer.   The OT deems homosexual acts as an abomination, punishable by death.  The NT deems homosexual acts as a sin.   Thus, given your beliefs are based heavily on modern English biblical translations, being (i.e. living as, acting out) homosexual goes against your religious beliefs.

Also, are you aware that using the Webdings font your words become meaningless strings of symbols?   Is that intentional?  If so, why?

Also, are you aware that using the Webdings font your words become meaningless strings of symbols?

I  thought that should be the case, but when I see it on the front page and here I see appropriate words, so I assume words everywhere. I even see this:

Before I try to answer, let me ask you to specify how you mean, "The reason: goes against your religious beliefs."

To be clear, you see symbols? If so, I better stop. You're the first to inform me of this.

The front page, the tracker and quotes all use the default system font.   But the comments have full font control.   Your system must have an odd implementation of Webdings that renders letters instead of symbols.

Thus, given your beliefs are based heavily on modern English biblical translations, being (i.e. living as, acting out) homosexual goes against your religious beliefs.

Friend TiG, the OT homosexual death sentence is irrelevant. Modern Israel even had Nitzan Horowitz, the first openly gay politician to be elected to the Israeli Knesset, and reelected in 2013. People become spiritually enlightened.

New Testament believers, such as Josh Weed and Reverend Elder Troy Perry are operating right on top of the scriptures written to make them outcasts. Thus, they will stand before God to be judged of whether they are correct or in error.

As for me, homosexuality and even practicing homosexuals do not offend me. Each person is accountable for their own actions before God. This why conscience and being true to oneself is most important.

Ah! I see it now! I have been using Firefox as default browser since I changed to it on NV. Also, I do have Chrome installed. I should have checked appearances in both browsers! In Chrome I see the symbols I expected to see. Thank you for making me aware of this problem. Friend, you have my permission to inform me of any other obnoxious differences that get by me using Firefox!

the OT homosexual death sentence is irrelevant

Glad you feel that way.   Would be nice if everyone recognized that Leviticus 20:13, etc. should be ignored as irrelevant (and, indeed, nonsense).

New Testament believers, such as Josh Weed and Reverend Elder Troy Perry are operating right on top of the scriptures written to make them outcasts. Thus, they will stand before God to be judged of whether they are correct or in error.

Good.  That is the position I have been advocating with you.   Logically it does not make sense that God would create homosexuals (God does not make mistakes) and then deny them human intimacy per their nature.

As for me, homosexuality and even practicing homosexuals do not offend me.

Would be shocking if that were not the case.

Each person is accountable for their own actions before God. This why conscience and being true to oneself is most important.

I would say Weed and Perry are being true to themselves by not allowing ancient words with dubious origins and vague interpretations of heavily translated original manuscripts based on second+ hand information to dissuade them.

Logically it does not make sense that God. . . .

One,  it appears you are reckoning God is equipped with human logic, no? Two, I have often read in your posts that were you presented with sufficient evidence of God in nature (or in spirit?) you would modify your perspective accordingly. I can imagine what impact evidence, natural or spiritual, would have on your logical understanding, TiG.

I would say Weed and Perry are being true to themselves by not allowing ancient words with dubious origins and vague interpretations of heavily translated original manuscripts based on second+ hand information to dissuade them.

As I read up to now, I still need to finish reading Reverend Perry's perspective, both of these men thave moved to a form of cognitive consonance , were as a practical matter they go a step beyond the written text to "fill-in the blank" on New Testament homosexuality. I applaud their courage, because it breaks with spiritual 'paralysis.'  Now then: 1. It is clear to me both men plan to take their 'case' up with God in eternity.  2. Both men, otherwise, appear to hold to and abide what you label "ancient words" in every other area of their spiritual lives. Neither man has abandoned the Gospels or the New Testament Letters.

One,  it appears you are reckoning God is equipped with human logic, no?

No that is not it.   I was noting that a human being, when trying to determine truth, can use logic.   If ancient books are not logical one can explain that as human failings of ancient authors or one can explain that as perfect authorship but an inexplicable God.   To me the former is profoundly more likely.

Neither man has abandoned the Gospels or the New Testament Letters.

And my comments were not suggesting they (or you) do.   Very few people take the Bible literally - especially the English versions.   So if one is not going to go 100% literal (wise, IMO) then one will have to use other methods to determine what is most likely divine and what is most likely not. 

The Bible use reason, logic, and a mixed assortment of different writing genres to convey difficult concepts, which take deep reflection, comparative study, and even passages of time to comprehend.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that those who are to learn from its books must do so by faith, and that not being a so-callled, "blind leap into the dark." (Though, that is what it may feel like to the non-initiated). Spiritual faith is a gift from God. It is not induced by human logic by itself. This is a persistent and pervasive point in the New Testament.

Thinking-believers are "prepped" ahead of time before taking up the mantle of a spiritual life. It involves reading, discussions, long hours of personal reflection to "count the cost" of "putting one's hand to the plow."

To your last sentence. Thinking believers use the tools available to us in all areas of life to help our faith explain itself to a larger and more accurate degree. It is called revelation and spiritual enlightenment. It is highly desirable. For example, it is a good thing when some people, who all their lives and in some cultures, have been told to hate based on a passage or set of passages in the Bible, come to realize that actually love is the highest goal God has set for humanity. That all that is required of these folks is love for others and all else is the prerogative of God.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that those who are to learn from its books must do so by faith

That could be true if people did not interpret it so differently.   No doubt each person thinks the Bible is clear to them but if one person reads 'homosexual acts are an abomination - a sin punishable by death' and another reads 'God is love and would never create a person only to deny him/her intimacy' then where is the truth?   

It is called revelation and spiritual enlightenment. It is highly desirable. 

It is easy to understand how someone could come to an inner enlightenment through meditation;  accepting ancient and demonstrably inconsistent words of flawed human authors as divine is very different.

Ultimately, we know we exist.   Therefore it is possible we were created and the creator is logically what we would call 'God'.   But we know nothing about God.   We have lots of people over time opining (and declaring) knowledge of God, but these are simply words of human beings.   We can (at the very best) use our reasoning to guide our personal speculation as to what God is and what God wants and indeed what plans, if any, God has.   

Some of us reason that, in lieu of any divine specifics to the contrary, being a good person is a reasonable course of action.   If we have desires we act on them if they do not cause harm to others. 

Faith is a gift of God. It may be unsatisfactory (to you, some others, and maybe even me at times) that God/Spirit gives spiritual insights over to mankind to compile, but that's the way it is—for now. We all suffer it to be this way.  As Jesus put it some will have faith to 30, 60, 100 percent. We simply have to meet our fellow believers at their threshold. Humans are quite stubborn creatures.

We are not talking about faith in a God.   We are discussing how one truly (as in truth, correctness) ascertains rules imposed by God.

The best method known for mankind to ascertain spiritual rules and spiritual power . Be Born Again!

The best method known for mankind to ascertain spiritual rules and spiritual power. Be Born Again!

Unless that gives one a direct line to God to pose questions and get direct answers, this does not yield truth - does not answer the subject question:  does God want homosexuals to not have intimate relationships per the nature He gave them?

That question in scripture is unclear. The solutions for Josh Weed and Reverend Perry, individually, is one of action and see, as near as I can explain to date. I will need more time to listen to Rev. Perry's sermons! I suppose many will choose practicality over ambiguity. I can not make that decision for them. I would not even if I could!

I was not directing my comments to them Cal.

I can not give you answers from scripture that are not there: that would be presumption.  In such cases, believers have liberty to do as Josh Weed, Reverend Perry, and myself are doing. We each have different perspectives on "practical" homosexual living. Each of us according to conscience.  Ultimately, we all with be approved or disapproved. It is all that we can do!

You might say to me, why does God simply not give clear answers to questions? That question kind of goes hand and hand with why do we have perception problems in the world that require solutions at all?!

I can not give you answers from scripture that are not there: that would be presumption.

And I would prefer (as you know) that you not try to answer from scripture.    

In such cases, believers have liberty to do as Josh Weed, Reverend Perry, and myself are doing. We each have different perspectives on "practical" homosexual living. Each of us according to conscience.  Ultimately, we all with be approved or disapproved. It is all that we can do!

I suppose you are saying you believe homosexual relationships are wrong ('conscience').   Why is homosexual intimacy wrong in your opinion?

You might say to me, why does God simply give clear answers to questions? That question kind of goes hand and hand with why do we have perceived problems in the world that require solutions at all!

My question would be more along the lines of:  'why does anyone hold vague 'answers' from dubious sources as truth?'.

The answer is simple: Josh, Troy, myself we are called to be faithful people of "the Book." And though an answer to all of life's conditions, dilemmas, issues, or problems are not in the Book, it does not change the terms and conditions of our service and faithfulness.  Just ask any thinking-believer!

I suppose you are saying you believe homosexual relationships are wrong ('conscience').   Why is homosexual intimacy wrong in your opinion?

So for my clarity, what you would like Cal to acknowledge is the difference between "sexual" in nature and "loving".. as in companionship without sex, correct?

I think Calbab knows that by 'intimacy' I am referring to homosexual relations - that which the OT deems an abomination and the NT deems a sin.   

My interest is how anyone could actually know that God (assuming ...) would create so many human beings (and other creatures) with a homosexual nature only to deny (now only humans) them the right to be intimate with others per their God-given nature.

And I would prefer (as you know) that you not try to answer from scripture.

TiG, I was distracted above as I worked through your questions. But let me take this head-on.  A partial problem you will encounter when entering into discussions with people or persons of faith is your insistence on reason alone to determine truth. Faith, by definition, means appealing to revelation, trust, and experiences, though not necessarily in that order. Scripture is a major part of faith. Therefore, scripture is a big part of the answer!

'why does anyone hold vague 'answers' from dubious sources as truth?'.

The implied sources are no longer doubtful from the believers' perspective.  And, what is vague over time can become clearer to a heightened degree.

I suppose you are saying you believe homosexual relationships are wrong ('conscience').

No, what I am saying is along these lines:

There are three separate perspectives of practical homosexual living occurring on this thread. 1. Josh Weed. Divorced w/children and expected to remarry w same-sex.  2. Reverend Troy Perry. Married or w/partner. 3. Myself. 'Married to my faith. Since the New Testament does not explicitly make a positive statement on homosexuality, we are left to pray about it and accept Spirit's leading.

Each of us are living our life according to our faith (good conscience).

Therefore, as Paul instructs in matters that are not clear. . ."seek righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Anything else, such as acceptance and judgement, falls under the prerogative of God as Judge.

Explain "God-given" nature. Afterwards, explain to me, us, the extend of your approval of all "God-given" natures, my friend.

Faith, by definition, means appealing to revelation, trust, and experiences, though not necessarily in that order.

1. FAITH:   Faith that there is a creator entity is understandable.   It is a general, abstract possibility.   So those who believe in a creator do so on faith.   Okay.
2. TRUST:  However, when one gets to specifics (e.g. God considers homosexual intimacy) that is a very different kind of faith.  That is blind trust in the words of ancient men.
3. REVELATION/EXPERIENCES:  Now if someone actually engages God through revelation / experiences and He has ruled on a specific point (e.g. homosexual intimacy) then that would certainly be a rule to follow.

When someone goes to the Bible for anything, that is a primary use of situation 2.   Given one is going to a book, it makes sense to apply reason to the question: is this book worthy of my trust?   Accepting the Bible as truth simply because other human beings claim it is so is profoundly shaky.   Even if one is convinced the Bible is divine (because God directly talked to them and said so), the problem of interpretation always exists and the ambiguity of the words is undeniable.   Nobody really knows the truth of the Bible.  Ultimately one must go to revelation / experiences - go directly to God and ask.

If one can directly speak with God (revelation / experiences) and one has taken steps to ensure one is not kidding oneself, then that would be more accurate than the current incarnation of the Bible (or any other man-made document).

My position, as you know, is that there is no evidence suggesting anyone can know anything about God (defined as the creator of the known universe) other than the possibility God (as defined) exists.   Thus I would advise everyone to just be a good person and have a happy life without harming others.

Explain "God-given" nature. 

God given nature = how God created you.    If a person is homosexual, for example, that is (part of) 'God-given nature'.

Afterwards, explain to me, us, the extend of your approval of all "God-given" natures, my friend.

My personal approval is a function not strictly of nature but nature+nurture - the ultimate behavior of the individual.   If an individual behaves so as to do no harm then generally that means I (personally) approve (for all that matters).   So if someone is driven to kill and eat his victims I disapprove.   If that is fundamentally a function of nature (e.g. the person was born that way) then God has some explaining to do.   

In the case we are discussing (homosexual orientation) that appears to be how the individual is wired - one's nature.   (Same with heterosexual orientation and all the various shades in-between.)   Homosexual intimacy between willing adults where no harm is done is an example of a "God-given nature" that one should act on if it makes one happy.   IMO.

Since the New Testament does not explicitly make a positive statement on homosexuality, we are left to pray about it and accept Spirit's leading.

Well, as I just noted in other replies, I would go with the direct line to God rather than pay any attention to a book.   There is no evidence that anyone  (including ancient authors) can know anything about what God (creator of the known universe) wants (if anything), so my advice is to live one's life without harming others.

You are entitled to your reasonable opinions. As long as you realize that as a person lacking faith and homosexual experiences, you are not in the best status to explain either to others, friend TiG. The people in the Bible, maybe even some writer dealing with the personal dilemma and issue of homosexuality, would be better situated to write. Certainly, those biblical writers understood faith, as the bulk of the New Testament is about faith.

My position, as you know, is that there is no evidence suggesting anyone can know anything about God (defined as the creator of the known universe) other than the possibility God (as defined) exists.

My friend you have been seeking to have this discussion for some time now. I just might indulge you. Though, I am not quite sure this thread is ready for it in full. There is much to this article above that has been barely scratched! For example, the areas TAP is heading into. And the Pastor. And did you "peek" the articles footnoted? Josh Weed is going to live on a compound surrounded by his former wife, kids, and new male influence.

Not sure what I am supposed to do with that.   I gave you my perspective and you respond by saying I may not have sufficient experience to weigh in on this topic.  Been around a long time, even longer than you.  One need not be a professional golfer to have an excellent understanding of the physiological dynamics and game strategy.     

A better approach would be to show where my comment is wrong (or right).   Or to note disagreement and why.   Implied disagreement with a stated reason that I do not know enough takes us nowhere.

And what if the person is homosexual and DOES NOT CHOOSE to act on that, instead taking the total spiritual route? In my case, I was in my flesh/nature for 18 solid years, for 25 years I dwell in my spirit/nature. Do not understand me: My appreciation of my homosexual nature (and the male form)  does not mean I am longing for sexual intimacy with anybody! I no longer feel I would know where to get started again! To "get going on that" just for the sake of activity is a non-starter.

What I do support are homosexuals being able to decide the course and direction of their own lives without negative sexual discrimination. I certainly did. And, when I came to a life of spirituality, I came to it with a clear conscience. I should hope any homosexual should do the same. Therefore, I do not pass judgement on Josh Weed or Reverend Troy Perry's ministry. They are servants of God in their own right, even as I am.

And what if the person is homosexual and DOES NOT CHOOSE to act on that, instead taking the total spiritual route?

No one is forcing anyone to act on their impulses, though I feel bad for those who deny themselves their nature just because some ancient script that condoned slavery and incest says they should. I know this might be a foreign thought for many religious persons who have become acclimated to forcing their beliefs on others, trying to control who can love who, trying to ban abortion, trying to ban certain sex acts, trying to ban people they consider "perverts" from using the restroom of their choice, but that isn't actually our right as Americans. The default position in a secular society is one where no one forces you to get an abortion, no one forces you to be gay, no one forces you to worship a certain God or forces you to be an atheist and it's none of our business what two (or more) consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes. Those are all personal choices and reasonable persons respect the privacy and freedom of their fellow citizens to live as they wish.

Coming to faith in God is a truly humbling experience, my friend. Second to the mind-expanding revelation of what I can best call spiritual awakening, my chiefest emotion felt was humility. I saw my pride, my arrogance, and 'smallness' laid out in front of me against an Ancient and Vast Presence.

Oddly, the third sensation I received was the 'force' of just how patient God/Spirit is with us. These "revelations" were extraordinary.

This state of euphoria, if it can properly be called that, lasts about 6 weeks. Church believers are highly aware of it. In the Church sphere, it is called "sanctification" Most people incrementally drop back down to the persisting world and its problems. At this point, if you have not acted to do so already, you begin to seek out other mature spiritual people with whom you hope to have this experience in common. Usually its a church of some kind.

And what if the person is homosexual and DOES NOT CHOOSE to act on that, instead taking the total spiritual route?

The 'instead' implies mutual exclusion.   So sure if someone does not wish to act on one's natural orientation that is cool (totally personal choice).   But if the act is one of suppression because it is mutually exclusive with a 'total spiritual route' I would say one needs to be confident that they are correct about what the 'total spiritual route' means.

And ... as a matter of fact .... that is the essence of the point I have been making.   How does anyone know what a 'total spiritual route' demands?

I was in my flesh/nature for 18 solid years, for 25 years I dwell in my spirit/nature.   Do not [mis]understand me: My appreciation of my homosexual nature (and the male form)  does not mean I am longing for sexual intimacy with anybody! I no longer feel I would know where to get started again! To "get going on that" just for the sake of activity is a non-starter.

If you do not wish intimacy then you are not suppressing desires.   You are doing what you wish.   That is good.

So let's not use you as the example (I prefer that anyway).  Lets offer a hypothetical but quite typical person, Jim, who holds that acting on his homosexual desires goes against God.   Jim wants to have intimate relationships but has chosen the spiritual side of his perceived dichotomy.   My advice to Jim would be to seriously examine how he determines the rules imposed upon him by the spiritual side.   How does he really know that he is not to have intimate relations?   Because some other human beings say so?  Faith in a rule communicated by human beings?  (Insert the points I have made in prior comments here.)

Do not feel disparaged. I am only suggesting that someone who has practical experiences in a faith walk (even if it is a relatively lousy 'walk')  and specific lifestyles has insights of a personal nature. It is not simply an academic exercise. For example, you will rarely, if ever, read me making forceful arguments about heterosexual interactions beyond a certain proficiency. Though, I have been intimate with several women in my life - none of that had deep emotional underpinnings for me. That said, I can relish with my eyes the devotion a woman and man can have for each other. It can last tens of years.

Side note: To me, there is nothing which quite compares to watching how attentive a man and woman (be they young or old) can interact together when dancing close. Such unison. Just though I would throw that out there!

Do not feel disparaged.

I do not take any of this personally.  My comment was that arguing that another person does not necessarily know enough never works well.   If a point is made that is wrong then it is best to show how the point is wrong.    'You just do not understand' or equivalent is not discussing.

I agree with the overarching themes in this message!

How about this: If you rely on 100 percent reason-there is no room for anything other.  - And-  Just how hard are another man's legs anyway? I'm just saying, friend Tig!

My advice to Jim would be to seriously examine how he determines the rules imposed upon him by the spiritual side.

A few things need to be mentioned at this point. All families in civilized societies are responsible for teaching their children "home-training" values. Now in a religious household, specifically a Christian household, doctrines and articles of faith will be introduced and shared with the child/ren. Bible reading and influences goe with the territory.

However, generally-speaking, there is no spiritual power in that child/ren because of a lack of personal commitment. It is only after that child/ren has gone out into the world, been impacted by the sights and sounds and extraneous offerings there, can that child/ren make an informed decision to give serious faith a try or avoid doing so altogether. Jesus called the process, "counting the cost" before "putting hands to the plow." 

Once hypothetical Jim makes a serious decision to enter the faith "realm," he will most likely have brought his flesh inline with his new spiritual outlook. He will have encountered the power he needs to complete a spiritual journey through life. Else, he will decide as Josh Weed and Reverend Perry did above to chart their own spiritual course looking forward to seeing what the end of it will be!

If you rely on 100 percent reason-there is no room for anything other.

Reason = thinking / deciding.    Emotions (feelings in general) serve a purpose as sources of information / alerts, but when applying information to the real world - when making choices - reason is the only option.   

Once hypothetical Jim makes a serious decision to enter the faith "realm," he will most likely have brought his flesh inline with his new spiritual outlook. He will have encountered the power he needs to complete a spiritual journey through life. Else, he will decide as Josh Weed and Reverend Perry did above to chart their own spiritual course looking forward to seeing what the end of it will be!

Given.  I would make the same comment to Jim:

My advice to Jim would be to seriously examine how he determines the rules imposed upon him by the spiritual side.   How does he really know that he is not to have intimate relations?   Because some other human beings say so?  Faith in a rule communicated by human beings? 

If you rely on 100 percent reason-there is no room for anything other, my friend.

If one relies upon something outside of reason then that is outside of thinking.   Ultimately every thought, every decision, every position is a result of reasoning.   One cannot even have faith without reasoning.   There is nothing (cognitive) outside of reason.   So if someone 'feels' something and deems it to be a supernatural experience, the interpretation of said feeling (and the subsequent conclusion) is still reasoning.   

IMO some people interpret feelings as evidence of God (or the action of the Spirit).   The interpretation may be genuine (it is possible) but it also (and I submit most likely based on the lack of evidence) may be the result of weighting interpretations that are more desirable to the person rather than being rigorous and skeptical.

Should God desire to be "more rigorous" and humanity "less skeptical" — end faith and in doing so come forward and burst all our bubbles!

It would be a nice gesture to just tell us what He wants of us and end the demonstrable historical worldwide confusion.

Josh Weed. Divorced w/children and expected to remarry w same-sex.

The Weeds are Mormon.    It's a real shame what the LDS cult has done and is still doing to gays by encouraging them to marry the wrong gender or live a life of loneliness, but at least he's finally broken free from the more hateful aspect of that superstition.     Of course the next problem his family faces is that his kids will have to disown him and not live with him if they want to remain Mormon.     If he and his wife and kids are smart they'll run far away from that bigoted and unhealthy cult.

patheos

2.1.49   My answer, my friend!

MODIFICATION : " Do not mis understand me: . .  ."

I first read that as MORTIFICATION, which was indeed an answer for some conservative Catholics.

I think this dilemma echoes the squaring of science and religion to a larger degree than not. Though I myself am a-religious, I would think that any god would not care a wit in regards to ones sexual orientation as long as the individual were true to both.

We are what we are and I would not deem (nor do I believe a god would either, as he or she has bigger concerns) it sinful to be so.

Good day Luther! One of the hopes I personally have, is to untangle the lines of thought about what the New Testament in particular actually says about homosexuality, where it is ambiguous, and whether are not it is silent on the matter for all times. However, what I routinely observe are religious and irreligious persons projecting onto and emoting off the written pages of the New Testament. 

So what am I saying? I am saying we should be frank and honest with what the New Testament does, does not, and is unclear about on the topic of homosexuality. Being true to the text requires this.

What we homosexuals choose to do in terms of practical day to day living and open expression is a whole separate matter.

To the latter, I have some work to do on my own, and I will do it too. I have the website for Metropolitan Community Church. (See footnotes.) I intend to check out all the available information MCC offers to explain its points of view. After all, Pastor Troy Perry, Founder and Moderator, is leading many people. He deserves a sit-down listen to.

Admittedly it has been some time since I have cracked the book, but I do not remember Jesus having any exceptions to "loving all others as one would love themselves".

I would rest easy and be true to whomever you are, I think that may have been his intention (coming from an a-religious fellow).

Luther, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is this the one you mean?

As I said, it has been some time But yes.

Calbab,

It is good to see your words again my Brother!  I think you are doing a Great Service to the Lord.  I am proud of you Calbab for your faith in God.

It is difficult for me to comment about men being attracted to other men.....Just like I don't understand how Women are attracted to Men.......I suppose had I been born a Woman (LOL).....I would have been the biggest Lesbian on the planet.....

I guess what I am trying to say....is....don't be offended if I don't comment much on this topic.....I don't think I have a lot to offer on the subject.

Please continue your calling......I believe it is important.....You have a wonderful story Calbab....and it needs to be shared.  You are doing hard work and I know it will be rewarded in Heaven.

Your Friend,

TAP

TAP! My brother, you are always welcome to say what is in your heart on my articles. Say it, we can walk through it, get through any 'concern' together.  I have questions when I read the background story (on the links) and in the video of these two men.  Josh Weed, an acknowledged homosexual married to his childhood sweetheart as youths, now with multiple children is a beautiful person, and is divorcing this year to go live out his romantic attachment with some man somewhere. Reverend Elder Troy Perry started a church for homosexuals without any formal spiritual training, and simply by seeing a need and filling it. He did so remarkable in 1968! Rev. Perry's backstory is remarkable and my understanding is he is still preaching from the same Bible using the same methods as other mainstream churches.

TAP! Honestly, I am always cherish your words, even when we go toe-to-toe. Your presence means much to me. Say, question, reply, with what is in your heart. Perrie, provides us "plenty good room!"

Will do my Brother!

I do have questions....and if they are too personal.....just say so...no problem at all....Here is one....

Do you feel as if you were born Homosexual or is that something that developed?......Nature vs Nurture......

Great question! Nature. My homosexual attraction appeared at puberty (Junior High). I even remember to this day where I was and what I was doing! Of course, I personally knew and saw other kids who swished and carried purses as preschoolers. They grew up and are homosexual today. There is a wide variety of homosexual variation. 

100% Nature?  Is it possible that you were exposed to it before puberty?  I know there have been many studies on this topic.....but I have not seen any that suggest it is 100% genetic....In fact, there are studies that show genetics have little to nothing to do with it......Identical twin studies come to mind.....If it is 100% genetic.....then there shouldn't be any Identical Twins with one Gay and one Heterosexual twin.

Look at this from your own experience.  Did you learn to be attracted exclusively to the opposite gender?    Can you imagine any possible way for you to be taught to not be heterosexual?

For me the answer is that I have always been attracted to females and nobody taught me that.  Further there is no way I will ever not be heterosexual.   To me this is obviously nature. Thus I have no reason to hold that a homosexual male would not likewise be following his nature.

Gotta go....but I have to say.....I don't have a strong opinion on Nature vs Nurture with regard to Homosexuality......My leaning is that everyone has tendencies.....which in my (weak) opinion makes it a choice......I could be persuaded otherwise.....and I'm not calling you a liar...not at all....I think it is possible that you may not remember (too young).....something in your environment that pushed you toward homosexuality....

Something else that has been on my mind (for quite some time).......If you recall....I said your spiritual writings ......"remind me of Paul".....I said this before you told me you are gay.......You also said that you wondered if Pauls "Thorn".....was that he was Gay.......I wondered that myself before you mentioned it......

Is it possible that you were exposed to it before puberty?

I was not sexual before puberty, so it was not at the top of my list of 'things' I was evaluating in myself. I'm sure studies are fine, but they only deal with the subjects and types who sit for them. My brother, I understood your earlier question to mean you wanted to get a personal sense of the issue from someone who lives it.

Hello my friend (TiG).....not much time.....but Statistically speaking.....being born a male.....most men are Heterosexual......I know you to be a Scientific Person.....If it is 100% Genetic.....then why are there Identical Twins that one is Gay and the other is not.

You also said that you wondered if Paul "Thorn".....was that he was Gay.

Nope, I never wrote that! (Smile!)

My brother, what a good memory you do have, nevertheless! At the time, the discussion was along the lines of how Apostle Paul may have dealt with a life of abstinence. Of course, that would be private and not worthy of excessive public speculation or argument.

Thanks for the answer Cal.....I appreciate that you are willing to share this with me and others.....The reason.....I ask these questions is that I wonder if Sexual Abuse could be a factor....maybe Television, Society etc are factors.......Pretty complicated stuff really.....but I have to go.....Later!

TAP 

there shouldn't be any Identical Twins with one Gay and one Heterosexual twin.

Not sure I follow your train of thought. Is this somehow different from two homosexual brothers? I have seen this. There are all sorts of variations in the sexual realm.

I could have sworn ....that you said that.....oh well....maybe I mistook what you said...and.......my memory isn't what it used to be.....Later Brother!

If it is 100% Nature.....(Genetic)......Then how could there exist Identical Twins (100% the same Genetically) that one is Homosexual and one that is not...

If it is 100% Genetic.....then why are there Identical Twins that one is Gay and the other is not.

Not knowing the specifics I would say they were not strictly identical twins.   Maybe identical in all visible ways but clearly not in terms of sexual orientation.

Regardless, since the science is far from complete on this, I go with logic.   I have yet to find a heterosexual male (not bisexual) who could even imagine choosing to be attracted to males instead of females.   Given that choice does not seem to be one we can make, I wonder why anyone even muses that sexual orientation is a product of nurture.

Nope.  I will try to find that specific thread (it's on NT). But, I assure you ahead of time, Paul's sexuality has never been an issue in my mind. Mostly, because he never discussed it. He did write about his abstinence. I will 'look it up.'

To the first paragraph: Years ago, someone gave me the best indicator of how to determine one 'status.' Erotic dreams. Of all the erotic dreams I have had in this life, I can count the ones with women in them on one hand. So, what does that tell you?! Nature or nurture? . . . ??

Er,' Anybody else??

I think erotic dreams describes one's orientation but it does not settle the nature or nurture question given someone could argue that the person having the erotic dreams has, by definition, been nurtured.

I already stated how I can reason this out.   Since I could never choose to be gay (to no longer be attracted to women but instead to men) there is nothing that suggests sexual orientation is a conscious choice.   I did not learn to be heterosexual - I was not indoctrinated to be heterosexual - I am naturally heterosexual.   For me to be homosexual, one would have to change my biology.   One would have to change me to someone else.

Why would this be any different for homosexuals?

I think erotic dreams describes one's orientation but it does not settle the nature or nurture question given someone could argue that the person having the erotic dreams has, by definition, been nurtured.

You lost me. Dreams are subconscious. What am I missing?

 Since I could never choose to be gay (to no longer be attracted to women but instead to men) there is nothing that suggests sexual orientation is a conscious choice.

Actually, people can and do change their approach to sexual desire due to some life-altering event, similar to have millions of people "turn off" to their tribe and exhibit more in common with another tribe:

1.  Prisoner Richard Speck ( "Supermale" in Blue Panties: The Woman-Murderer Self-Womanized" ) sprangs to mind.

2.  Men and women who are emotionally and repeatedly crushed by the opposite sex - can pursuit other forms of sexual expression.

Dreams are subconscious. What am I missing?

Yes they are.   Do you think dreams are not influenced by what the dreamer has in his/her mind?   If one could be nurtured to be homosexual (I think that is incorrect) then dreaming about homosexual encounters would be what one would expect.   So dreams do not distinguish between homosexuality by nature or by nurture (if that is even possible, which I doubt).

Actually, people can and do change their approach to sexual desire due to some life-altering event, similar to have millions of people "turn off" to their tribe and exhibit more in common with another tribe:

People are free to change their behavior (prison for example) but that is not the same as changing one's orientation.

For example, a bisexual individual who has been engaged in heterosexual behavior could certainly switch to homosexual behavior.   The orientation (bisexuality) does not change, only the behavior.   This is why I explicitly excluded bisexuality.   This is a gray area where one can literally jump between homo and heterosexuality.   Focus on those of us who are strictly heterosexual.   Males are usually more likely strictly heterosexual than females (from what I have observed).    I would be extraordinarily interesting to find a case where a mentally sound, strictly heterosexual male chooses to be homosexual and ceases to have an interest strictly in females but now is strictly interested in males.   That would be quite remarkable.  

Personally, I think sexual orientation is typically a mixture of Nature and Nurture.....but I don't have a real strong opinion on that......That being said.....If Cal thinks his situation is 100% Nature....I respect that......because I have 100% respect for him.

I would be surprised if they didn't check their DNA to verify.....but you could be correct.....I'm not an expert on the subject.....

Found this on Wikipedia....not the best source but take it as so.....

en.wikipedia

I have slept with women in my life. I have even attempted to dream about women erotically in a fanciful way. —It does not happen. I know I wrote that in a lifetime I may have odds out less than several erotic dreams involving a woman, on deeper reflection, maybe it was more like:  a single dream.

My point is this nature vs nuture question may get closer to its conclusion by researching subconscious erotic dreams. Assuming people are honest, that is.

Heterosexual men highly probably will not erotically dream about males, and homosexual males highly probably will not dream about women. At least that has been my personal experience, as one who has slept with both sexes.

Thanks, TAP! In the sixth grade, another guy and I wanted to date the same girl. Nothing came of it. But, we were serious. Somewhere between the seventh and eighth grades puberty struck and I first noticed another boy! Been that way since that day! Nature or nurture.

My point is this nature vs nuture question may get closer to its conclusion by researching subconscious erotic dreams. Assuming people are honest, that is.

I understood your point when you first made it.

My point was that the person having the erotic dreams is necessarily at least old enough for puberty so nurturing would have had time to take effect.   Thus if one can be nurtured into homosexuality (that means truly being homosexual ... not pretending / kidding-oneself) then why would you expect the subconscious to reveal erotic desires that are different from what the person desires when conscious?

Your article nets down to science has not found a single determiner of sexual orientation (true) but does not really even consider the element of nurture.   One interesting section (just noting because it is interesting) is the one that compares physical and biological differences between homo- and heterosexual people.   

The nature vs. nurture debate continues and will likely not be resolved quickly.   So in lieu of conclusive findings I tend to go by what homosexuals say.   In my own (statistically irrelevant) conversations with various gay men in forums such as this over the years, not one has stated that their sexual orientation was a result of nurture.   They all have described their homosexual orientation they way I describe my heterosexual orientation.   It is biochemical - it is how we are made.

We will see where the evidence leads (eventually) but I predict it will lead to fundamentally nature based on my own observations (and reasoning).

 I HATE dragging this stuff kicking and streaming into this discussion, but, my understanding is that young heterosexual males who have been sexually molested by other men do return to normal heterosexual lifestyles in many significant cases. They are likely not having subconscious erotic dreams of those past events or the men involved. Food for thought. Though, this falls under food for though since I have no evidence to present on this.

I HATE dragging this stuff kicking and streaming into this discussion

Dragging what stuff?  Your molestation example?

On a slightly different note, have you met a homosexual who holds that his (or her) sexual orientation is a result of nurture (or, worse, a choice)?    All that I have discussed this with are supremely confident that their sexual orientation is nature - not learned, not a choice - but who they are at a biochemical level.

As a corollary, I have yet to find a person willing to claim that their heterosexual orientation is a result of nurture (that they could actually choose a different orientation).   (Excluding the gray area of bi-/pan-sexual orientation.)

My point was that the person having the erotic dreams is necessarily at least old enough for puberty so nurturing would have had time to take effect.   Thus if one can be nurtured into homosexuality . . . .then why would you expect the subconscious to reveal erotic desires that are different from what the person desires when conscious?

If I follow you close enough, if someone could be nurtured into homosexuality, is it safe enough to suggest someone can be nurtured into heterosexuality?

From 'Part 1' of the original article on which this one is based:

Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary

4. If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?

This is a really good question and I can see how people can be confused about it. Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us tobuild a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in
their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

Link: joshweed

If I follow you close enough, if someone could be nurtured into homosexuality, is it safe enough to suggest someone can be nurtured into heterosexuality?

Obviously many religious organizations think homosexuality is a result of nurture and they seek to reverse the nurture to 'cure' the homosexual.

If they are correct (and I think they are dead wrong - and bigoted on top of that) then their methods might work.

IMO nurture has almost nothing to do with sexual orientation.   I will revise my view based strictly on the evidence.

Are we saying the say thing? Are you thinking that I am supporting nurture over nature? Because I am not. I am repeating the mantra: "Nature or nuture" for effect only!

Are you thinking that I am supporting nurture over nature?

No.   You already clearly stated that you are 100% certain that your sexual orientation is nature.

It does bother me that you even need to ask that question.  Is our ability to communicate that poor?

No. Maybe, it gets a little tangled up. It is great when we can 'detangle' it, nevertheless!  Plus, I do not always place as much emphasis on a point as you do. Sometimes I skip a sentence which is significant to your thought, point, or continuity. (Smile.)

Okay, would you go back to 4.1.28 and answer it?   Here is the question:

TiG:  On a slightly different note, have you met a homosexual who holds that his (or her) sexual orientation is a result of nurture (or, worse, a choice)?   

Sorry to take so long. I had to look into MSNBC's Thomas Roberts' sexual molestation background, and the background of Don Lemon's sexual molestation. Neither guy explain the effects on themselves but not the cause. No I do not know recall anyone who is homosexual due to nurture.

Still, I want to continue checking out this one. . . because it does seem to be that I have heard of it explicitly happening to . . . .

I have scenario that I would like to play out on the subject of Nurture vs Nature......I hope everyone will play along......

I will start by saying......I again ....don't have much time today....but I will play along the best that I can.....

Let's say that you are born on an island and you are male.......The only other on the island is your Father......The Island only has Women and your Father on it.  Can you be attracted to other men.....if there are none to be attracted to ......other than your own Father?  How can one be attracted to something they have never seen or known?

I found this Interesting......

How can one be attracted to something they have never seen or known?

Biochemical wiring.   We are born wired with the natural drive / attraction for females and the ability to recognize the objects of our desires (even if none exist).

Here is a counter example in basic behavioral biology:

We purchased our male dog as a puppy.   Nobody was around to teach him the 'pee protocol' yet somehow he knows to cover the pee of other animals.    When he was three he got a companion dog.   Now when the two go outside, he waits for the companion to pee and then walks over, sniffs and then pees over to make his the dominant smell.    Many examples of pre-wired impulses / behavior are available.

But in your example, consider this.    It is always the case that heterosexual males will have a first encounter with a female (other than a parent) to which we are attracted.   How could we have that first attraction if we had never seen a female we were attracted to prior to that?

Point is that we clearly do not learn to be attracted to certain females and not to males.   We get that right out of the box.   We are wired that way.   

Animals do not teach their young to be attracted to the opposite sex yet in most cases that is exactly what happens.   Generally the males are aroused by females and females are interested or disinterested in suitor males.   Given the lack of any instruction (nurture), nature seems to get the job done.

Though morally repugnant, that boy can be attracted to his father. Though the attraction will likely amount to nothing physical between them (father being strong heterosexual). That child can acclimate to his environment and perform as expected. However, and this is important, on the occasion that another male value comes onto the island, dormant attraction will stir up. May even surprise the boy or man at the time.

I still don't understand how someone can be attracted to something that isn't there.  Let me make this simple.....How could you like the color orange if you never saw it?

You would not know until you saw orange, but the first time you saw it you would either like it or dislike it.

You are suggesting one would need to learn to like the color orange.   But you know that is not the case.

4. If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?

Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. . . .

. . .  .I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. . . .It is bodies connecting and souls connecting.

---

TAP, so what am I saying? That, the moment a suitable male figure appears on the island, at some deeper level that young man in your example will be attracted on a deeper level, at the soul level (like the pull of a magnet) to that figure. Many young men (and older ones too) find this out when approached by the 'right' person.

You make a good point TiG.....but if you never have been attracted to someone of the same sex.....then by definition you are not homosexual.....you may have homosexual tendencies.....but not homosexual.

In addition, my earlier post 4.1.37 suggests that there is statistically significant evidence that Nurture plays a role in a significant percentage of cases.....

I wouldn't call that gay.....I would say that person has Homosexual Tendencies......if they never act on it.....then they are not a homosexual........For example.....we can think about stealing something....but that doesn't make us a thief.....

So is a heterosexual not one if s/he never acts on it? Isn't it clear that heterosexuality is designed, even for the virgin, by h/her statement of attraction? In the same fashion, I am homosexual though I have not lain with a man in 25 years! In a spiritual sense, I have my 'virginity' restored to me.  I define myself by my attraction. . . because I am being true to my statement of attraction.

Now then, what you may be saying is if I never spoke up about my 'statement of attraction' without displaying it no one outside of myself would know about it. Is that how you mean it?

if you never have been attracted to someone of the same sex.....then by definition you are not homosexual.

One can be homosexual well before finding the very first person s/he is attracted to.    They may not know it until the find the person, but lack of knowledge in one's own sexual orientation does not mean the sexual orientation is not there.

No.....What I am saying is this......If you never have seen a male you can't be attracted to one......If you have never been attracted to a male....then by definition....You are not a homosexual......

Gotta go.....Sorry.....Leaving for Florida pulling a 40' RV Trailer....and we are supposed to get 3 to 6 inches of snow Saturday......Leaving early to beat the storm.

Later my Friends!

Take care and be safe and sound!! All the Best!

No.....What I am saying is this......If you never have seen a male you can't be attracted to one......If you have never been attracted to a male....then by definition....You are not a homosexual......

so you are stating the sexual orientation doesn't exist unless (or until) there's an attraction to that gender ?

would you state that this also applies to heterosexuals ? let's take your scenario and flip it - it's an island of all men except for your mother - would you just be a homosexual instead of a heterosexual in that instance ?

Now that's interesting. And, it goes to show just how much we think of life with women in it, that it never occurs on average to think of scenarios where they are a factor. The imagery in your proposition is startling!

No.....What I am saying is this......If you never have seen a male you can't be attracted to one......If you have never been attracted to a male....then by definition....You are not a homosexual......

First thought: In the extreme sense, you are correct. In your exotic setting where there is no one to "add"  to an inclination (1 + ? = 1). Written another way: If this male sample has never seen or heard of say, chocolate can he have a desire for it? Probably not, so alternative state is relegated. But, what happens the instance chocolate appears?

Second thought. But that is in absentia. In reality, and I have heard of this, the male child could act as a 'sperm donor' only. But not socially "marry" and live with a woman or women of the island. (Though, for the sake of this analogy I would like to keep in view that not all homosexuals are effeminates. I am not.)

If this male sample has never seen or heard of say, chocolate can he have a desire for it?

He would not have a desire (as normally defined) for another male because he has no concept to desire.

But that does not mean he is not sexually oriented homosexual.

When he interacts with males and females in the future, if he goes for the males and not the females then he is clearly homosexual.   And, importantly, he now knows that he was always homosexual but simply was not aware of it.

He would not have a desire (as normally defined) for another male because he has no concept to desire. But that does not mean he is not sexually oriented homosexual.

Let's test this further: What of the concept of, feeling as though there is a hole in one's life?  Remember dad is in the picture. Not necessarily suitable. But a catalyst?

NOTE: I may be pushing this specific analogy too far out of proportions. If you think so. We can move off it.

It is loneliness.    

I doubt the analogy can take much more.   The thing is, many people cannot appreciate how homosexuality is just like heterosexuality.   Same human feelings, just a different mix of genders.

I do not understand what anyone sees in males, but I also happily observe that females dig us.   Given females find males interesting, it is easy for me to see how a homosexual male can also find males interesting.   It is biochemistry - why do people go to such lengths to dismiss that simple fact?   Some males are wired to be attracted to males ... not complicated.

No.....What I am saying is this......If you never have seen a male you can't be attracted to one......If you have never been attracted to a male....then by definition....You are not a homosexual......

Hmmmm.......so any infant raised in a cloister will only be attracted to males or females depending on which kind of cloister it is?    That seems highly unlikely.

In fact from animal studies we know that it's not the case since the sexual orientation of mice can be controlled hormonally during a certain prenatal development phase.    That mouse fetus had never even seen another mouse when its sexual orientation was fixed before birth.

TAP is off to Florida ( 4.1.47 ) , he may be a bit getting back to you! (Smile.)

If it is 100% Nature.....(Genetic)......Then how could there exist Identical Twins (100% the same Genetically) that one is Homosexual and one that is not...

Because MOST sex-related traits including sex differentiation of the brain are determined by prenatal hormones at certain critical development periods, not by genetics or by chromosomal sex karyotype.

For example we have Nicole and Jonas Maines, zygotic twins where one is transgender and the other cisgender.....and that fact was pretty obvious by the age of 2.

We become aware of new things when we are introduced to new things. For example, (going spiritual here) God the Father introduced Adam to Eve by informing him of his loneliness; Moses introduced the Law informing the Jewish people of a need for a certain order in life; Jesus introduced faith as a prerequisite for coming to God.

These are examples of how we come to know about our needs. Physical and otherwise. Not sure if I have "connected" this right to the discussion but I felt it needs to be stated.

It is biochemistry

Another thing that needs to be stated is this: We can not the large elephant in the room which states that though we can do many things with these bodies, not everything we physically decide to do can be efficient or approved. (Again, another point that may need more fleshing out.)

... not everything we physically decide to do can be efficient or approved

While your (general) statement is true on the surface, the word 'approved' is curious.

"Approved."  As in legal and lawful; meeting community standards. That's what and all I meant by it.

Understood.   Why did you mention it?

The context here is homosexuality.   Over the past few decades, the 'approval' of homosexuality has changed but there are still many who disapprove.   And, in particular, the Bible disapproves (and most every religion).   

That brings forth an interesting conflict for you and many others.

For me, it brings forth no conflict. I lived my life in the "community" and now I am happily reserved.  As for the likes of others like Josh Weed and Reverend Troy Perry, they have constituted their faith around acceptance of living active homosexual lifestyles. That is fine. It's each individuals choice to choose to live their faith according to knowledge. That is, being true to their understanding!

On the otherhand, if they truly believe Christianity, or their version of faith, calls for each of them to stop and they continue on living the lifestye, then they would be living a lie. 

(Kind of rushing with this one, busy right now.)

I understand that you and others resolve the conflict, but given such a harsh conflict one would expect gay men to seriously question the divinity of the Bible.   Plenty of justified skepticism for claims that the most grand, perfect, supreme entity would create homosexuals only to demean their nature.

Safe to state, there are a lot of things in this world that demean it, no? Just because we can do it, just because we have the liberality, is not to be confused with should do or higher purposes. As to the Bible, let me ask you something. . .what do you think 'compels' any homosexual to continually seek it out, read it, and attempt to find value in it?

As to the Bible, let me ask you something. . .what do you think 'compels' any homosexual to continually seek it out, read it, and attempt to find value in it?

That is a question I would ask you.

Given such a harsh conflict one would expect gay men to seriously question the divinity of the Bible.   Plenty of justified skepticism for claims that the most grand, perfect, supreme entity would create homosexuals only to demean their nature.   To wit, why would a gay man hold the Bible divine given such a profound conflict?

harsh conflict

What "harsh conflict"? In the articles above, many homosexuals men and women have discovered "comfort" and security in their decision to live faithfully and homosexually. The Question of homosexuality in the age of faith, is not answered in the sealed canons of the New Testament. As many who argue for same-sex relations and same sex marriage (but not for fornication) point out, the meaning of idolatry, and prostitution, carried this issue forward in the ancient world as a form of paganism unworthy of a spiritual-minded people. Add to this: A new complication to the meaning occurs in countries which patterned local laws, customs, traditions based on concerns about "maleness" and what makes a man through the ages, defined nuances in male/female characteristics, and misconceptions about homosexuality (such as, pedophilia). To this add another layer of dominance, prejudice, confusion, and the raw bully factor, spread it all across two thousand years (or so) and we have a fully working display as to why the subject is taboo-ish, and just now coming to a better place.

Don't know if I dealt with all the implications of your comment. Write back if needed. I am working back and forth on a project as I write this!

One more thing: As I have often stated in our discussions, spirituality calls to those who seek it, want it, and receive it through faith.  Many homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals in this regard.

What "harsh conflict"?

Claims by the Bible that the most grand, perfect, supreme entity created homosexuals.

Claims by the Bible that the most grand, perfect, supreme entity demeans homosexual acts (which follow from a God-given homosexual nature).   

The bible claims God created everything, including all the problems, ambiguities, and solutions. In other words, the world we live in is accompanied by joys and pitfalls throughout it. The wisdom is in knowing, or discerning, the differences. Now then, God has left the whole experience to faith. You have and continue to question the merit in a God who does this. Up to a point, it is a fair question.

However, everyone who holds to faith, trusts there is a God to supply the answer at the appointed time. We hold to faith, we enter its 'realm' and dwell there all our days, because we have faith as a gift from the Spirit. Homosexuals, do as well. Same with anyone who comes to God, they must believe God exists.

Faith is the master-stroke of religions.   With faith one believes without evidence and, in many cases (such as this one), in spite of the evidence.   

It is a contradiction for God to create homosexuals only to turn around and demean their God-given nature.   You appear to recognize the logical contradiction but deem it not a true contradiction - that God could explain it.  This is usually how things roll when questioning religions.   Every contradiction in a religion is immediately deemed not a contradiction but rather our inability to understand the mind of God.     

With faith (the master-stroke), religions are immune to scrutiny.  One can show the Bible contradicting itself with homosexuality, slavery, free will, omniscience, perfection, engineering, etc.   On every account, when facts and logic fade away, faith is always available as the wild card.   

As I often note, faith disables critical thinking;  IMO this is the primary reason why religions continue to exist.

That is an aged old dilemma for those who operate in the natural alone, and it been written about in biblical terms. I will post the verse here and you can look it up at your discretion: 1 Corinthians 1:17-19 . I, too, like millions of others without the gift of faith, walked in my natural man for 30 odd years. That man was the only understanding I had of this life.

What a person of faith soon realizes is this: There is greater wisdom in getting a spiritual understanding, because it can help lead us through many of the pitfalls in this life. Jesus stated, 'Come ye that are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.' Amazingly, people come and rest is given, indeed. This bible is replete with individuals who came to faith and never left it. After coming to faith, I was most surprised that in reading the "old" Bible, that what I was experiencing in modern day had occurred in like terms to men and women who had written it down in sacred books.

Our changed lives , our 'rested' states, are the spiritual evidences that we present to the world, but the world does not understand it. Because the natural man has little to no interest in faith or the changes it can provide.

There is greater wisdom in getting a spiritual understanding, because it can help lead us through many of the pitfalls in this life.

A spiritual understanding that holds the Bible divine, given what we can observe written in the Bible such as allowing slavery (even to the point of making rules for slavery), does not seem to be a wise leader.

I, too, was a critic of spirituality which the natural man can not phantom, and as such I chalked it all up to nonsense.  I had reason to do so, too.  That reasoning allowed me to shut the book, cutoff my limited investment (social) in Church culture, and walk away forever, if needed. It was not!

Slavery? Seeing as to how Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, and so on have been "handled" throughout world history, it can boggle the mind that these groups of people want anything at all to do with the books in the Bible and its God. Yet, new believers join this and other faiths everyday.

What is this? Can't we see and feel the spiritual oppression?  Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do!" We continually learn the power of forgiveness.

I, too, was a critic of spirituality which the natural man can not phantom, and as such I chalked it all up to nonsense.

I would not say it is nonsense but rather extraordinary claims sans credible evidence.   As such, my current conclusion is that this is wishful thinking.   I may be wrong and the way to convince me is to provide evidence and reason.   Nobody can provide this.   All I have ever witnessed are claims.    So there you go.

Slavery? Seeing as to how Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, and so on have been "handled" throughout world history, it can boggle the mind that these groups of people want anything at all to do with the books in the Bible and its God. Yet, new believers join this and other faiths everyday.

Good point.   Very close to the implicit question I have asked you.

But on slavery, I find it remarkable that others are not appalled that the OT provided rules for proper slavery and that the NT -with Jesus and a kinder, gentler Father- did not condemn slavery.   It is not as if this is a tiny moral issue that Jesus just did not have time to address.

I relate my experiences. It is not now and shall never be my responsible to convince anybody to trust in God. What am I then? You may ask. I am: My example. My truth. My telling of my journey in faith. 

Slavery again? The Apostle Paul wrote that slavery is nothing, for God frees the spirit. These bodies are nothing for God frees the spirit. We are all slaves to life and death. And, Jesus reasoned, that we should not fear life's groanings for in the presence of God, all live! Therefore, we focus our minds on higher dimensions of existence. Leaving the mundane to incrementally catch up, or we leave it behind.

Jesus did not speak about slavery, because 'the mission,' it's purpose, was/is spiritual-not 'earthy.' It has always remained the responsibility in the earth for mankind to rule itself. Thus, turn his/her own hearts to end slavery and man-made problems—finally mankind has progressed significantly away from slavery.

Jesus did not speak about slavery, because 'the mission,' it's purpose, was/is spiritual-not 'earthy.'

He missed a golden opportunity then to provide a much needed moral lesson.   Given Jesus was big on moral lessons (and thus demonstrably 'earthy' too) this seems like a profound omission.   Imagine the potential effect on our history if Jesus had condemned slavery (or at least said it was not cool).

One might posit that God had a purpose for ongoing slavery and that it is beyond our ability to comprehend the divine mind.   Another might suggest that an arguably better resolution -one that matches the evidence- of this -and many other- moral contradictions is that the Bible is simply a book written by fallible ancient men and should be considered quaint, but important literature - not divine guidance.

Jesus spoke and exampled love. Jesus called his disciples, friends and not "servants" and that he would lay down his life for them. Jesus did not "lord" over his disciples, instead he reminded them to be in service to one another and to show humility. For we, are one body.

On the other-hand, people hear what they want to hear, so they can maximize what they want to do.  In my article, The One About FAITH , we see Captain John Newton, an African Slave Trader, who in coming to faith first, renounced horrible and vile treatment of his slave cargo, and later on left the trade all together. Love won over.

God is Spirit and patient with mankind. We have been given the gift of time and space to come to a greater understanding of what is truly valuable and worthy in life. And, when as individuals we do, it is a truly humbling experience. Thus, while the painful, dreadful, hateful, negative problems and situations we experience throughout world history distress us to no end, just keep it mind it could always have bee n worse.

Does not change the fact that not once did Jesus condemn slavery - a practice that was common during his time.   He did not even call it a sin.   What a tremendous missed opportunity to impart critical morality.   

Indeed the more one views Jesus’ message as ‘love thy neighbor’ the more inexplicable His silence on slavery.

Okay, my friend. I have never been in a 'slave-church' in the modern-era.  Love is foundational. The fact is it's people that get it wrong. God is patient to let us figure it out for ourselves. it is us who have to 'bleach-out' the stubbornness and hardhearted streak within our minds and yes, spirits. What many churches are coming to realize is this: As Jesus taught, we can show compassion to even those we disagree with by letting them n large part, tend to their own tree even as we do our own.

Cal,

I think what Tig is trying to say, is not that Jesus endorsed slavery, but that there is much not covered in the NT, and that because of these gaps, there leaves room for interpretation. Interpretation is a practice done in many churches, and why in some denominations accept other aspects of life, while other more literal ones don't. 

Here is something to ponder. Jesus came from the Jewish traditions, which encourages discussion about the stories of the OT. They are not meant to be literal. The "Last Supper" was also Passover. In the Passover text known as the "Haggadah", there is a huge discussion about how many plagues did god give the Egyptians. Jesus would have known this text, inside out and known about the tradition of not taking things literally. So I am pretty sure, he didn't mean everything he said to be taken literally. Food for thought. 

what Tig is trying to say, is not that Jesus endorsed slavery, but that there is much not covered in the NT, and that because of these gaps, there leaves room for interpretation.

Delightful friend, Perrie. Consider this train of comments from our brother TiG :

4.1.72    A spiritual understanding that holds the Bible divine, given what we can observe written in the Bible such as allowing slavery (even to the point of making rules for slavery), does not seem to be a wise leader.

  4.1.74   But on slavery, I find it remarkable that others are not appalled that the OT provided rules for proper slavery and that the NT - with Jesus and a kinder, gentler Father - did not condemn slavery.   It is not as if this is a tiny moral issue that Jesus just did not have time to address.

  4.1.76   Imagine the potential effect on our history if Jesus had condemned slavery (or at least said it was not cool). One might posit that God had a purpose for ongoing slavery and that it is beyond our ability to comprehend the divine mind. 

  4.1.78    Does not change the fact that not once did Jesus condemn slavery - a practice that was common during his time.   He did not even call it a sin.

Perrie, what implication do you get from these four replies above? I'd love to read your point of view.

Perrie, what implication do you get from these four replies above? I'd love to read your point of view.

I would like to hear what others have to say about this too.   

I would ask them:

• What point am I making?
• Is it valid?

Friend TiG, what need is there to open this up to popular opinion? Just state what you meant. Unlike Jesus who is gone, you are here and can express yourself clearly.  Friend Perrie thinks you did not mean Jesus endorsed slavery. Well, what do you mean for us to come away with on this one?

Just state what you meant.

I think I stated what I meant several times in several different ways.    Summarizing again:

• Slavery is immoral.   
• Jesus did not take the opportunity he had to teach the critical moral lesson that slavery is wrong.
• Slavery was quite common during his time so this is no small point;  not some insignificant rare occurrence.
• In the end, the Bible (as a whole) does not condemn slavery (arguably the opposite).

If the Bible is seen as the creative work of ancient men (not divine) living in a slave-based socio-economic environment, then the above makes perfect sense.

If the Bible is seen as the divine Word of a perfect God - the arbiter of objective morality - then the above should give one [substantial] pause.   

It all so good and find for you to pick out and shine a light on what modern men perceive as poor choices in the ancient world, likewise it should be just as useful to point out the positives in the ancient economy. I judge ancient folks by their standards, even as I judge modern men and women by our own standards. And yes, there was a great deal of war, peace, slavery, and freedom in the ancient world. You will find there one more thing too:  Civilization. That is, cities, governance, economy, institutions, and enterprise.

This notion that some how God is going to "empower" those folks with mores of life which are more suitable to modern life is about the same as to suggest that our mores, won't ever be improved on my people 2000 years from now! Where is the growth and development in that? Some folks in the future, I sarcastically imagine, will attempt to blame God, people of faith, and the irreligious in our day for not having within us the intellect and spiritual development to not prevent all the wars and melees in the 20th century! But, I digress.

My 'brother,' you did not of necessity need to "break it down to me" —I GOT YOU from the beginning of this slavery message and its continuation. Your reply is better directed to any confusion or misunderstanding, excuse me, our dearest friend Perrie may have drawn or missed in your comment. (Smile.)

It all so good and find for you to pick out and shine a light on what modern men perceive as poor choices in the ancient world,

My focus was on Jesus and the modern belief that the Bible is divine.   

I do not fault ancient men with pens for what they wrote.   It is entirely understandable.   Modern people, however, have the benefit of hindsight and substantially more knowledge.   Thus we can look back on the Bible and critically scrutinize its claim of divinity.   That is what I was doing with my slavery example.   Many other examples exist of course.

I GOT YOU from the beginning of this slavery message and its continuation.

I suspect you did, but if your replies do not acknowledge the actual point that was made, or do not directly counter same but rather navigate around the point, I will naturally respond as if you did not see the point I made.   Note also that even when replying to a comment, I am actually writing for anyone who may read our discussion.   So sometimes if it looks as though an established point is getting muddy I will tend to clear the air and restate the point in a clean form.

I am not and will not address any notion of the Bible being divine with you. That's a "muddy" part of a discussion you are having with someone, but not me, my brother.

Next, as long as men and women have been and are continuing to come to faith in God for 2000 plus years, you will be required to accept their words and ideas as meaningful, unless you can demonstrate where they are wrong, delusional, or insane.

It is not enough for you simply to overlook their statements, discount their wisdom, and  disregard the meaning of their lives. And, likewise, the meaning and expression of my own. I have written to you honestly and plainly. That it does not have an effect on, simply means that I have no effect on you.

I, for my part, am perfectly happy to accept that homosexuals (to turn the discussion back for the moment), like myself, are different from myself. We do not have to walk in "uniformity" for the record, homosexual don't "love" the same types of people either. Thus, if and when the same God accepts me as accepts others like me after their manner and vice-versa,  I am fine with it! I do not have to shut any one of us out of the Kingdom of God and I am perfectly happy to live in peace with all mankind here on Earth—mankind that will allow it. The question, my brother, becomes is it okay with you?

Next, as long as men and women have been and are continuing to come to faith in God for 2000 plus years, you will be required to accept their words and ideas as meaningful, unless you can demonstrate where they are wrong, delusional, or insane.

Required by whom?

It is not enough for you simply to overlook their statements, discount their wisdom, and  disregard the meaning of their lives. 

We were discussing Jesus not taking the opportunity to denounce slavery and the logical impact of that contradiction on the notion that the Bible is divine.   Why are you portraying this as wholesale disregard for the meaning of lives, wisdom, etc. of an unspecified group of individuals?    How did you get from there to here??

I, for my part, am perfectly happy to accept that homosexuals (to turn the discussion back for the moment), like myself, are different from myself. We do not have to walk in "uniformity" for the record, homosexual don't "love" the same types of people either. Thus, if and when the same God accepts me as accepts others like me after their manner and vice-versa,  I am fine with it! I do not have to shut any one of us out of the Kingdom of God and I am perfectly happy to live in peace with all mankind here on Earth—mankind that will allow it. The question, my brother, becomes is it okay with you?

What question are you asking?   I have not suggested all homosexuals are alike or walk in uniformity or love the same types of people.   I have not suggested you shut anyone out of Heaven or that one should not be perfectly happy to live in peace on Earth.   You just presented a ton of new thoughts and end it by implying I am not okay with this when if anything my comments show I would be in favor of this.   

What does any of this have to do with the moral contradictions of slavery and homosexuality in the Bible and the resulting critical analysis of the Bible as divine?  

I am not and will not address any notion of the Bible being divine with you. 

Clearly.   Instead of providing 1/2 dozen replies to my comments - each of which navigated around an actual reply - it would have been better to announce that you do not intend to discuss the topic.   When someone replies, one naturally presumes intent to actually reply to the comment.   When the reply appears confused one naturally tries to be clearer.

TiG, are you a total rationalist? What role does special revelation play in your worldiview?

I think what Tig is trying to say, is not that Jesus endorsed slavery. . . .

Perrie, can you ask TiG this one directly?

TiG, are you a total rationalist?

Of course I am a rationalist.

What role does special revelation play in your worldiview?

Other than trying to get those who hold special revelation to be true to explain themselves?   Nothing.   Waiting for the special revelationists to put forth a good argument.

And I am serious.   If there is a supernatural 'force' out there I would be incredibly interested in learning about it.   (So would every scientist on the planet.)

Perrie, can you ask TiG this one directly?

For Heaven's Sake!   Cal, just ask your question.

I stated that Jesus did not condemn slavery.  ( A true statement .)   I noted that he had a golden opportunity to impart critical objective morality and would have changed history had he done so.  ( I challenge anyone to argue against that. )  I also noted that slavery is not some tiny thing - that it was replete during Jesus' time and continued on ( even to the present ).  ( Again, who would argue against that? )  So this is a very big moral deal. 

A Bible that has Jesus not condemning one of the most immoral acts humans engage in challenges its' own divinity .   To wit, it makes excellent sense that ordinary ancient men would not have their Jesus character condemn slavery since that was a critical part of their economy.   The lack of Jesus' condemnation of slavery supports the argument that the Bible was the invention of ancient men with pens and not communication from a divine source.

That is what I have been noting repeatedly.   What question do you have?

Let Perrie speak for herself, please.

Let Perrie speak for herself, please.

You requested Perrie ask me a question:

calbab   @ 4.1.91 -  Perrie, can you ask TiG this one directly?

I figured I would just provide my answer.   I would be speaking for Perrie if you asked her a question and I answered for her. 

Obviously I did not do that.

Ah, you have become all things to all people now. I see.

Ah, you have become all things to all people now. I see.

By speaking for myself about that which I have offered in this article?

You seek to determine all truth by general revelation alone, you do not seek to determine truth by special revelation. You imply it is either general revelation or special revelation, not both possible. I say,  both are operating. There are truths that go beyond human understanding aided by special revelation which are reasonable.

I think what Tig is trying to say, is not that Jesus endorsed slavery. . . .

My friend TiG: Do you think Jesus endorsed slavery? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Did you just disclose a new fact of your being tonight, while a wildling incarnate? HA!

Scientists using natural tools won't get far into testing for Special Revelation.

I say,  both are operating.

I know you believe that.   The (rhetorical) question is why?

Do you think Jesus endorsed slavery? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Not explicitly but certainly implicitly.    The implicit endorsement starts with His acknowledgement of the practice of slavery (e.g. the  The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant ).   B ut during His time biblical acknowledgement is not even necessary because slavery was impossible to not notice.   Given Jesus was clearly aware of the very well known practice of slavery He could stay silent or He could denounce it as objectively immoral.

Jesus never denounced slavery as objectively immoral.

That, Cal, is an implicit endorsement for slavery.   But implicit endorsement was not the point that I was making.   My point was this:

A Bible that has Jesus  not   condemning one of the most immoral acts  humans engage in  challenges its' own divinity .   To wit, it makes excellent sense that ordinary ancient men would not have their Jesus character condemn slavery since that was a critical part of their economy.   The lack of Jesus' condemnation of slavery supports the argument that the Bible was the invention of ancient men with pens and not communication from a divine source.

In other words, it is illogical that the God of Love would be teaching moral lessons here on Earth and not include, in His teachings, moral guidance on the practice of enslaving other human beings .

Scientists using natural tools won't get far into testing for Special Revelation.

To date, science has not been able to detect the soul, a ghost, Heaven or Hell, evidence of a global flood, etc.   Outside of religious inventions, science has not detected psychic abilities, prognostication, witchcraft, psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.    Lots of people believe all these to exist.   Lots of witnesses even today of alien abductions, miracles performed by contemporary human beings, etc.    The point is that it is extraordinarily easy for the human mind to believe something if the mind would prefer the belief to be true.

Religions know this all too well and have developed quite a few mechanisms to either keep the faithful faithful or guard against scrutiny.    For example:

• Transforming faith from a major flaw (believing something without a shred of evidence) into something that is revered ... sought after.  Master stroke!
• Deeming things 'supernatural' so that they are, by definition, safe from scrutiny ... and getting people to believe that human beings could possibly know anything about something that is 'supernatural'.   They claim to know the supernatural - it cannot be tested but somehow the knowledge can be attained.   Get people to buy this and ... Brilliant!
• Redefining doubt and critical thinking (if it is scrutinizing religion) as a weakness.    Getting people to caste aside doubt at its onset because that is just Satan trying to manipulate your mind.   Genius!

There are others, but you get the point.   I have simply noted by example how religions ensnare minds.   When it comes to saying the right things to appeal to the human mind, religions are masterful.

Hi Cal,

The implications as I understand it, again reverts back to Passover (and understanding the Passover service). Long before the point where Jesus offers his body and blood, he told the story of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. God had told Abraham that they would serve as slaves, but those people who served, he would judge. The implication would be that slavery would be wrong. But once freed, the Israelites had slaves. All of this is in the OT. So, we have a dilemma. Since Jesus was trying to start a more peaceful movement out of his roots, he should have said something specific to clear up this contradiction. So I understand Tig's point. Even if you don't lay it at Jesus' feet, it seems that slavery is wrong sometimes and not wrong at others. If Jesus was setting forth a new faith, this should have been cleared up. 

Try opening that "steel-trap" of a mind. (Spoken with love, my friend.)

Man is not a machine, and s/he can not function as one. Rational exclusivity allows a person to place total emphasis on one form of truth, no doubt a powerful one, butt to the disregarding of any regard for any other. Rational exclusivists deny special revelation, and other forms of truth.

I have written a series of blogs on my experiences in life and pointed out different characters past and present who had similar and in ways the same experiences. These peoples' life times of experiences (and writings) can not be disregarded, diminished, and summarily dismissed based on a particular set of men and women deciding general revelation is the only credible form of truth.

'Other forms of truth' cannot simply be deemed as such.    For example, I just seeded a video of a flat Earther who seems to truly believe his form of truth is valid.

It is not persuasive to say 'I have a form of truth but, alas, I cannot demonstrate its veracity ... just trust me'.

I think what Tig is trying to say, is not that Jesus endorsed slavery. . . .

Hello Perrie. I think Tig is implying that Jesus endorsed slavery, because he has stated so much since your initial comment.

Non-sequitar:  flat-earthers?! 

This is not within the scope of this discussion in any shape form or fashion. Again, the heart (bulk) of my comment is ignored in order to magnify rational exclusivity. There are other forms of truth in this universe, others experience it - some flatly choose to ignore them. 

Perrie, we know that Jesus arrived against a backdrop of his messiahship. We are not informed if Jesus spoke directly to any number of human institutions or geopolitical positions negatively running rampant in the ancient world. For instance:

1.  Did Jesus address stopping all wars,
2.  ending world hunger,
3.  stopping poverty in its 'footsteps,'
4.  upending Roman authority?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expressed the human values of his kingdom to come, and further explained people should love one another and forgive one another multiple times over for offenses. No matter what 'state' they found themselves existing under in any system of this world.

This is not within the scope of this discussion in any shape form or fashion.

Then you did not read my comment.   I used flat-Earther as an example of someone deeming a 'form of truth' based solely on his word.

Here is what I wrote.  Seems clear to me:

'Other forms of truth' cannot simply be deemed as such.    For example, I just seeded a video of a flat Earther who seems to truly believe his form of truth is valid.

It is not persuasive to say 'I have a form of truth but, alas, I cannot demonstrate its veracity ... just trust me'.

Hello Perrie. I think Tig is implying that Jesus endorsed slavery, because he has stated so much since your initial comment.

Give you an inch and you take a mile.   My point was never that Jesus endorsed slavery.   I graciously answered your question (likely will not do that again) about endorsement by noting that the absence of condemning slavery could be taken as an implicit endorsement.   But that was never my point.   

My point was what I wrote.   Here it is again:

A Bible that has Jesus not condemning one of the most immoral acts humans engage in challenges its' own divinity.   To wit, it makes excellent sense that ordinary ancient men would not have their Jesus character condemn slavery since that was a critical part of their economy.   The lack of Jesus' condemnation of slavery supports the argument that the Bible was the invention of ancient men with pens and not communication from a divine source.

In other words, it is illogical that the God of Love would be teaching moral lessons here on Earth and not include, in His teachings, moral guidance on the practice of enslaving other human beings.

Good, no need for its continued mention here!

Let's hope not.

Nonsense. You do not accept God, Jesus, Sacred books, Faith, and on a deeper level so-called, "ancient men with pens" as having any meaningful value to your total rationalist worldview which denies special revelation. I know this much, because I have been engaging with your opinions for several years now. "Everybody" with discernment can glean this from your plethora of antithetical faith/religion/spiritual writings.

As near as I can opine, for your rational exclusivity to be correct, the body of experiences of others can not be.

Give you an inch and you take a mile. 

You do not give me anything. Implied or clearly stated, it is clear what your meaning is, Tig. In fact, the implications are clear: You think Jesus endorsed slavery in proper forms instituted by ancient Israel and improper forms later by world slavers. That's the point.

Nonsense

What, precisely, are you calling nonsense?    A quote would be helpful.

In fact, the implications are clear: You think Jesus endorsed slavery in proper forms instituted by ancient Israel and improper forms later by world slavers. That's the point.

Now you are trying to instruct me on the point I was making??   You just acknowledged you understood my point and I would not have to yet again repeat the same words.

Apparently not.   So now, given I was generous enough to entertain your tangent on Jesus' intent, you now demand that THAT was actually my point.

Well, Calbab, it was not my point.   In fact anyone who cares to read can go back and see that I have repeated my point numerous times.

My point was what I wrote.   Here it is again:

A Bible that has Jesus not condemning one of the most immoral acts humans engage in challenges its' own divinity.   To wit, it makes excellent sense that ordinary ancient men would not have their Jesus character condemn slavery since that was a critical part of their economy.   The lack of Jesus' condemnation of slavery supports the argument that the Bible was the invention of ancient men with pens and not communication from a divine source.

In other words, it is illogical that the God of Love would be teaching moral lessons here on Earth and not include, in His teachings, moral guidance on the practice of enslaving other human beings.

So now, given I was generous enough to entertain your tangent on Jesus' intent. . . .

Nonsense. You generously entertained no - thing  tangential, TiG. Your tangential point, if it is to be believed is Jesus is a "character." Thus, regression to (was it ever truly left?) a "worldview" there was no real Jesus to matter one way or the other!

In other words, it is illogical that the God of Love would be teaching moral lessons here on Earth and not include, in His teachings, moral guidance on the practice of enslaving other human beings.

Nonsense. You maintain the God of Love displays no evidence for existence and somehow you can extrapolate and constitute from lack of existence suitable (and unsuitable) teachings?!

To date, . . . .

Statements about the natural world are tested against the natural world. Continually here it is being demonstrated in the life of others how spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. And as Jesus instructed "Doubting Thomas,"  these things are shared between us by faith. By faith.

A total rationalist can put on display little to no faith whatsoever. It is true, before a man or woman can believe any matter regarding God and the spiritual realm, s/he must first believe God exist!

It has never escaped today's believers how, "We walk by faith and not by sight!" There is more: We are not left "orphaned" in our faith 'walk.' We have been provided for with the 'Seal of the Spirit' which further aids in our spiritual development and supplies us our spiritual power, some 30, 60, 100 —fold.

You maintain the God of Love displays no evidence for existence and somehow you can extrapolate and constitute from lack of existence suitable (and unsuitable) teachings?!

That is just feigned obtuseness.   I take God as defined by the Bible and refer to the character without adding the awkward 'supposed' or 'hypothetical' or 'ostensible' adjectives.   Most people 'get it' when a skeptic refers to the God of the Bible that the adjectives are implied.   You should not pretend to not realize that, nobody will believe you.

That established, I can analyze the God character in the Bible,  the words attributed to God by the Bible and engage in analysis on same.    And, surprise, that is exactly what I did.   So let me explain it again:

• Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) did not denounce slavery (per the Bible) but He did (per the Bible) acknowledge the existence of slavery.
• Slavery is immoral.   (Please disagree.)
• Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) was a teacher of objective morality (per the Bible).
• Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) did not denounce one of the most egregiously immoral acts - the enslavement of other human beings (per the Bible).
• Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) was all about Love and treating each other with compassion (per the Bible);  that is a direct contradiction to enslavement.   (Please disagree.)
• Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) missed a golden opportunity to set the world morally straight on slavery - an immoral practice that was replete during his time on Earth and has continued until today.   Imagine the difference in our history had Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) denounced slavery (because people believe he was real).

Now, being rational, who does not see the contradiction?    The God of Love teaching objective morality does not denounce slavery (of all things)???    

How can this possibly make sense?

Well, this makes no sense if the Bible is the divine Word of a perfect God because of course Jesus (if real) should have denounced slavery as objectively immoral.    But it makes perfect sense if the Bible was written by ancient men whose economic system had always been dependent upon the practice of slavery.   Men who saw nothing at all out of the ordinary for one person to own others as property.   Of course we modern folk know that slavery is morally wrong - absolutely blatantly obvious (right?).   So clearly God (the arbiter of objective morality) would find slavery to be morally wrong.  Right?  Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) would not implicitly (by the absence of denouncement) want people to think slavery was moral.   Right?  So we modern rational human beings who recognize the immorality of slavery observe yet another obvious human mistake in the Bible and yet another reason to conclude that the Bible is not divine.

Or do you wish to argue that God (the arbiter of objective morality) does not consider slavery to be immoral?

Suppositions. If you wish to teach Bible, display developed scriptures for your pronouncements. Else-wise, I need not assume anything from what you wrote.

You should not pretend to not realize that, nobody will believe you.

I am not the least bit interested in your "audience" if that is what concerns you.  It is evident that you 'play' at God, but your creation is of a lesser value because it is a shell-creature. Empty and academic.You can not teach or suitable explain what you detest, though oddly there is this deep-seated attachment to the outer edges of the subject-matter.

This would be an appropriate place for those members and friends of OT Judaism to step up and explain how slavery operated in Ancient Israel. It can be an "at-length" topic with a large volume of discussion exchange, depending on what is taken under consideration. I'll hold for a spell and see if any one will pick up the mantle.

Indeed, this article is not about Slavery, but you persist in drawing it onto those 'other' grounds, instead of beginning a new article on. . . .

Suppositions

Evasion.   Nothing in my comment requires biblical analysis.  It is New Testament 101.   If you think I am misrepresenting the Bible then make an argument.   I doubt you disagree with what I wrote though since it is quite obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the NT that Jesus did not denounce slavery.   

It is evident that you 'play' at God, ...

Why is it discussion always must devolve into one-sided baseless, fabricated allegations?    Did not come from me.

... but your creation is of a lesser value because it is a shell-creature.

We are talking about God per the Bible.   I did not invent Yahweh or Jesus, that came from ancient men with pens.

You can not teach or suitable explain what you detest, ...

Detest?   You ascribe emotion to my words yet my arguments are based on evidence and logic.   Just go with what I write - stop presuming.

Indeed, this article is not about Slavery, ...

The reality is that I simply used slavery as an example.   It was your ongoing responses that dragged it out into a sub-discussion.   

Nothing in my comment requires biblical analysis.  It is New Testament 101. . . . it is quite obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the NT that Jesus did not denounce slavery.   

1. Then in New Testament 101 fashion, display developed scriptures for your pronouncements. "Easy peasy." Afterall, the NT deals with Jewish slaves, Imperial Roman slaves, Greece slaves, servants, bondsman and bondswoman, bondslave, slaves to legalism, slaves to death, slaves to sin, so on and so forth, Teach scripture through application of it as evidence.

2. Next, do a Control + F for the word, "slavery" and note the first use of the word is from member Dismayed Patriot, afterwards 6 of the earliest 9 usages of the word slavery come straight from you.

Then in New Testament 101 fashion, display developed scriptures for your pronouncements.

I am to provide scriptures that show Jesus did not denounce slavery???       Think about what you are asking - you want me to deliver the scriptures that I have noted do not exist .

You have this entirely backwards.   I claimed that there is no scripture where Jesus denounced slavery as immoral.   If you disagree with what I wrote (and thus think Jesus denounced slavery as immoral) then it is up to you to come up with the scripture.    Obviously, right?

I claimed that there is no scripture where Jesus denounced slavery as immoral.

How do you know this? Who told you this? Where did you learn it? What books taught it to you?

How do you know this? Who told you this? Where did you learn it? What books taught it to you?

Are you suggesting that my facts are wrong??   That Jesus did indeed denounce slavery as immoral?   

If you disagree with my claim then show the scripture where Jesus denounces slavery as immoral.

If you agree with my claim then what on Earth is your motivation for challenging it?

Are you suggesting that my facts are wrong??

Facts from, where? Who? What?

Facts from, where? Who? What?

Where = the Bible.    Who = Jesus.   What = 'did not denounce slavery as immoral'.

Did Jesus denounce slavery as immoral?   You are implicitly arguing that he did (or you are highly confused).   If you hold that Jesus denounced slavery as immoral then all you need do is provide the scripture.  So much more productive.

Asking me to deliver scripture that I claim does not exist is about as ridiculous as it gets.   

Nonsense. You have produced a baseless supposition. You can only know what you claim through effort, and such effort would grant you something to present. So produce where you got this information from or drop this issue. If it was a general revelation state its source and location, please. If special revelation, then admit to that.

You have produced a baseless supposition.

So you are actually arguing that there is scripture in the Bible showing Jesus denouncing slavery as immoral.

My source is the Bible.   My falsifiable claim is that you will not find scripture in the NT where Jesus denounces slavery as immoral.  

You are the one making the positive claim that Jesus did indeed denounce slavery as immoral so let's see your evidence.    You have the means to falsify my claim, can you do it?

Nonsense. Where did you get your information to backup your statement?

Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) did not denounce slavery (per the Bible) but He did (per the Bible) acknowledge the existence of slavery.

Did this just *pop* into your mind? If you cannot give any support other than this statement alone, it stands baseless. Otherwise, produce a source and it location, my friend.

Otherwise, produce a source and it location

Hey Cal, are you reading my posts?   Have to wonder how it is possible that you do not understand that my source is the Bible (the NT in particular).  As for location, location of what?   Location of where Jesus did NOT denounce slavery as immoral?    That location is every passage in the Bible.

I made a falsifiable claim.   To show I am wrong deliver the passage where Jesus is denouncing slavery as immoral.

Source = the NT.   Have fun.   You will fail (and it is obvious that you know you will fail).

Evidently, you do not care to present where you got your points. Are both statements your own or did you get the two from someone else (a source)? Who is it? From where?

Did you read all entries in the NT regarding slavery, before delivering these pronouncements?

Evidently, you do not care to present where you got your points.

The New Testament.    Hello?

I gave you the means to falsify my claim yet you fail to do so.   Probably because you know I am correct.   So why play this pointless game?

Pointless is right. Do your own bible work, my friend. Moving on.

Pointless is right. Do your own bible work

LOL.   I did!   In fact that is your complaint.   

Now, let's see you do your own Bible work.  Give one example in scripture where Jesus denounced slavery as objectively immoral.

One example.   You have online access to the Bible.  You can Google passages.   You have all the resources you need to prove me wrong.

I predict that you cannot deliver even one example where Jesus denounced slavery as objectively immoral.

Further, I am confident you have already tried to do this and have failed - ergo this entirely silly approach you have taken.   I suggest you not blame me.   I did not write the Bible with such a glaring flaw.   All I did is report the facts.

Too late. Pointless won out! I've moved on now.

Wise choice to move on Cal.    I will leave it at that (being generous).

H A ! My new 'Drop' for the Week: ( h over o ver)

TAP, I am still looking out for the past discussion between us (or another member) about Paul and his "possible" thorn. (Smile.) If you remember its whereabouts let me know, too!

Oh....it doesn't matter.....just got back.....I will get back with you this evening....but I skimmed through the above posts about Jesus not denouncing Slavery......I tend to disagree......He did tell us to Love thy Neighbor as Thyself.......Nobody would enslave someone that they Truly Loved.....just something to think about....I thought that passage was one of the most insightful and Divine texts ever written.

Sure thing! Happy Easter to you and family!

Happy Easter to You as Well my Friend.  May God Bless You this Day and Every Day!

That is interesting.  Do you have a link for that study.  I don't doubt that there is a Nature component to this....I just find it hard to believe that it is the only factor.....for instance the much higher incidence of Sexual Abuse in Homosexuals compared to Heterosexuals.

He did tell us to Love thy Neighbor as Thyself.......Nobody would enslave someone that they Truly Loved

i would state that this is purely interpretation and subjective. If this (the above statement) were actually the case - then wouldn't, logically, slavery be openly condemned by Jesus in the Bible ?

He did tell us to Love thy Neighbor as Thyself.

He did indeed.   He also (per the Bible) clearly acknowledged that slavery existed as a practice but did not denounce it .   He treats slavery as matter-of-fact.   One would think that the God of Love spreading 'Love they Neighbor' would not routinely miss the opportunity to denounce slavery.

Mark 12:1-12

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants 1Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country.2When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard.3But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.4And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted.5Then he sent another , and that one they killed. And so it was with many others ; some they beat, and others they killed.6He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’7But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’8So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.9What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.10Have you not read this scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;11this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’?”12When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.

Matt 18:23-35

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant 23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.24When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him;25and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions , and payment to be made.26So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’27And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt.28But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’29Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’30But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt.31When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.32Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.33Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’34And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt .35So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

The parables have messages of good in them yet ironically the condition of enslavement and brutality of slaves is simply part of the parables.   Not a single word in these parables about how it is morally wrong to enslave another human being (much less mistreat them).

TAP! See my comment 4.1.112 , please.

I think you will find that the meaning of Slavery and Slave are quite different from what modern day people like ourselves think of......In fact....there are some places in the Bible that people claim they are Slaves to God.....So I don't think I'm going to get too heavy into why Jesus didn't directly denounce something that you or I most likely don't fully understand in the first place.

Bottom line is this.....Jesus said this is the Most Important of All the Commandments.....that we shouldn't treat others badly.......Maybe this isn't enough of a denouncement for you personally.....but it is plenty for me.......

²⁸  One of the teachers of the lawcame and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

²⁹  “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ^{[ a ]   30}  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ ^{[ b ]   31}  The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ^{[ c ]} There is no commandment greater than these.”