Homosexuality

[Groundzero]

Agh. I see the same battle is waging here.

heterosexuality is ok, but adultery & fornication is not.
We connect the dots to get:
homosexuality is ok, but homosexual acts are not

Now that sounds like sound reasoning doesn't it? :/ :/ :/

Actually, the proper reasoning tree would be this:

heterosexuality is ok, but heterosexual acts are not.
We connect the dots to get:
homosexuality is ok, but homosexual acts are not

Now does that sound correct? Oh no, Zebrahug. You're a lunatic. That means I'm not suppose to have sex. Well, that's basically what's being implied here. Of course, we don't want to see this side of our reasoning.

Really? We know Scripture does NOT condemn sex (man & woman), except in cases of adultery and fornication. But as for homosexuality, there is NOT ONE instance where it is condoned, ignored, or such. Go figure. The reasoning tree being used is completely flawed.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Zebra, do you have a diet of strawmen? Or do you deliberately ignore the point? Or are you really this dense?

Why don't you fall out from under the zebra's tail and read the Bible you corrupt to justify your bigotry. You have no biblical right to deny them protection within the law if that god appointed government is going to provide it.

But more importantly for this post of yours,,,,,,,

Which part of "lay with another man" is throwing your head into this delirious tailspin....?

If a person is a celibate homosexual, how in the bigoted hell you create in the name of God are they laying with another man? It is the laying with another man part that is the sin.

I don't have a crayola font and I can't draw pictures on here, I need you to step up to the big boys table and buy a dictionary if you need to. Lay with another man..... it doesn't mean take an afternoon nap... it says like a man lays with a woman...... think hard.... I can link you to pictures if you need, or you can buy a kama sutra and see the drawings.... its talking about sex..... fornication, bumping uglies, pelvis to pelvis intimation. Do you get the picture yet? I have used little words, scripture, asked you to reason and directly made the point. This is why I believe you are deliberately trying to ignore the point!

The fact that a legal marriage has nothing to do with a marriage in God's eyes, and that the church which marries at the privilege of the state laws has a marriage concept upheld for their members but is independent and holds no claim to the states laws shows what a hateful bunch of whining busy bodies the Church has become.

Now, you can choose to do what you will, continue to paint, deliberately a false strawman argument, or shut the front door and discuss as an adult. I made this blunt enough anyone with the age, intellect and education of a third grader would understand.

If a person has never had homosexual sex, they are still a homosexual.

I have been celibate the last 11 years, the last seven by solely my choice, but I am still heterosexual. A homosexual not having sex is not in sin according to the Bible, and your not qualified to edit it as much as you posture to do so.

Oh yeah, for all the sexual condemnations in the Bible, OT included, count how many admonishments are to heterosexuals vs homosexuals.... homosexuality was MORE open and frequent in the times of Jesus and Paul. Yet there was no mobilization to whup them on moral grounds. Just words to say in the church you could not do those acts....

 

[Groundzero]

A whole lot of 'fact' with no facts . . . . .

 

[epostle1]

Is heterosexuality a sin?
Heterosexual non married sex is. Adultery is.

Is homosexuality a sin?
Homosexual sex is. <<<<<< That is biblical.
Homosexuality as a sin is not biblical.

People need to learn to separate the two words, homosexuality doesn't mean you are constantly lusting for sex anymore than heterosexuality means the same for the opposite sex.

That's the sum of my arguments. I find it embarrassing that people can't agree on this.

I agreed with you on this several posts back. Your back is up against the wall for no reason.
kepha31, on 15 October 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

The love between a man and a woman is the foundation of civilization. Undermine that, and what have you got? It's not a matter of non-Christians following God's laws. It's a matter of protecting the institution of marriage which is the foundation of civilization.

1) Homosexuals are such a small minority of the population you would quintuple it and still be over crowded on the planet. That "undermining the foundation of civilization" is a fantasy bad dream.
2) The institution of marriage? You don't think we can make babies if we aren't married? That's the foundation of humanity....
3) You don't think people can be civilized if there aren't heterosexual marriages?
4) This was a bunch of parroted cliches. Sorry.

Gay “marriage” undermines the value of heterosexual marriage, which is the foundation of civilization. You are leaving out something.
The love between a man and a woman is the foundation of civilization. Gay couples cannot produce children. That is not a parroted cliché.

Being civilized is not the same as civilization.
kepha31, on 15 October 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
What do homosexual activists hope to gain from legalizing same-sex marriage?

Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. They want societal acceptance. ***context missing***​

Yeah, the women of the world wanting equal rights under the law were just abominations.

The comparison is another non-sequitur. Women with unequal rights don’t have their life spans cut in half.

Black/white marriages is another abomination. They wanted societal acceptance, or approval....

The comparison is another non-sequitur, and again you have taken my quotes, from the source out of context.

That's ignorant bigotry.
No, it is not.

HELL YES they want public approval but of being HUMAN BEINGS, not the dehumanized crap the Church preaches today. THEY SHOULD want societal acceptance AS HUMAN BEINGS not second rate problems as you treat them today. Give that to them, and their activism goes away. They ask for a coat, give them a shirt, stop bloodying their noses over it.

Know what I think? I think most of you don't have a reason why the Church behaves as it does on this topic. I think you tend to cut n paste other people's thoughts because you can't really justify it inside. Lacking your own arguments you steal whatever sounds like it might score and post it. Well steal is the wrong word, a little hyperbole...
You need to open your eyes. The Catholic Church has the most compassionate teaching on homosexually than any church on the planet, and she does so without compromising God’s moral laws.
kepha31, on 15 October 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
Others may be seeking absolution for a guilty conscience. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. ***context missing***


They want the hyper holy far right to stop treating them differently as human beings. They want the religious right to stop trying to take rights from them, or deny them protection under the law. To stop attacking their wills when they die, stuff like that which you will deny but I have seen happen. A holy roller family that has disowned their siblings, upon his death went to court to take away the stuff left to his partner who supported him all their adult lives. And they won. You wish to NOT enable that protection. How friggin loving that is.

A marriage is a covenant AND a contract. If the surviving partner did all the supporting, then there couldn’t have been much left for the court to order to the deceased family.

kepha31, on 15 October 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

But you don't have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person's longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right.


Granted. Being homosexual OR heterosexual will kill you if you are involved in risky sex. So, why not allow them the same anchors to stay committed to each other as every other family has.

<sigh>
If Tom and Dick can get legally married, what principle exists that would stop Tom, Dick and Harry to get married?

 

[dragonfly]

I'm assuming we are still discussing homosexual sins

Hi XP,

Just catching up in this thread and want to make the point I used the same verse as Nomad, Matt 5:28 in my post in the other thread, to answer the exact same question. Thanks for not jumping on me there, like you have on Nomad, here. But it doesn't look good. As we say in England (and this is not a gender-sensitive saying, despite the mention of a 'lady' in it) 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.' Your reaction to Nomad's legitimate answer has not recommended you as thinking rationally about the issues supposedly under discussion.

As I quoted above... 'homosexual sins'... it doesn't matter whose sins they are, sins are sins, just as Nomad stated. Sin comes from the heart, until it has been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. After that, the love of God can be shed abroad in it. That is, the love of God for both the new-hearted person and those who do not yet have a clean heart.

The other point which glares to me most obviously, is you don't seem to understand that homosexual behaviour, including the desires of the heart which precede the behaviour, are all forms of idolatry. This has been expressed by other posters already, and in case you didn't realise it, that - like the rich young ruler's sin of idolatry (in his case, of his wealth) - idolatry breaks the first commandment of the law of God, which in itself is a sin, regardless of how it plays out in thoughts and actions. Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Your following argument is totally flawed, as I have just explained.

If they are homosexual, relate to the same sex as a partner, but aren't having homosexual sex, and not lusting every person of their gender they see as you imply, nor lusting anyone of their gender for that matter, they are not in sin.

That isn't liberal. That's the flipping BIBLE. EVERY PLACE IT IS MENTIONED AS A SIN requires them to be engaged in the act of sex to be that sin.

For any of you that refuse to acknowledge this, you might as well take a black marker to the bible and remove the rest of the parts you don't like.

There are parts - such as man being made in God's image - which are extremely pertinent to understanding God properly.

For instance, the part where Paul says to ex-homosexuals, 'And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God... 17 But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.' 1 Corinthians 6:12.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]. 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

It is true that Paul is talking about abstinence, but abstinence in the absence of fellowship with God through the Holy Spirit, is not the same as a decision to turn to God with the desire to be recreated in His image, whole and holy.

If you argue that they lust because they are gay and thus are all guilty

A person who was 'gay' does have to stop thinking that they 'are gay', once they have given their life to Christ, because that cannot be true. They may not have an immediate change of thinking, because we all need our minds renewed, but, a Christian cannot 'be gay'. A Christian can have 'been gay', until becoming a Christian.

Is heterosexuality a sin?

No, because it's the way God made everyone (apart from those who have a genetic disorder).

Is homosexuality a sin?

Hopefully now you see why I don't like the term... because it dignifies the most profound corruption of the image of God. It is the opposite of what He intended through normal heterosexual instincts - children - increase.

People need to learn to separate the two words, homosexuality doesn't mean you are constantly lusting for sex anymore than heterosexuality means the same for the opposite sex.

That's the sum of my arguments. I find it embarrassing that people can't agree on this.

But this is a very superficial 'take' on the issues.

Unsaved heterosexuals are in sin, too, by being out of fellowship with God... by having a corrupt heart out of which proceed murder, adultery, fornication... just like a homosexual's unsaved heart produces. Yes, it's not about 'sex' all the time.

Most that I know don't care what you think. They don't put their sex in your face, and they want you to keep your nose out of their sex. They perform in the work place. They are socially appropriate. They pay their bills, their taxes, they contribute, they save lives, they want you to look at them and see a human being, not their sex.

They should have chosen a name for themselves that didn't put their sexual proclivities in the face of society, and, they should have worked harder to understand the spiritual implications of their clamour being met.

count how many admonishments are to heterosexuals vs homosexuals.... homosexuality was MORE open and frequent in the times of Jesus and Paul.

I did count, if you remember, and there are thirtyfive references to fornication or fornicator in the NT, with five in the old, and that's without counting references to sodomy, daughters of Sodom, men of Belial, Baal, other named gods, bestiality, idol, idolatry, prostitution (whores), unclean(ness), unclean spirit, lasciviousness, lewdness, high place, green tree, grove, and named places famous for it. Solomon turned the Mount of Olives into the 'mount of corruption' - 2 Kings 23:13

How comfortable sodomy is in the place of worship. It has no conscience whatever. 2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that [were] by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.


If there is a point to these last comments from me, it is to emphasise that a non-practising homosexual is not safe from the wrath of God on the basis of not practising. Ceasing from sin is related to a new heart and a new spirit.

I note, too, that much of what you have written in both threads, rails against the Church for both having a standard and for having the wrong standard. Probably Christians are the last people who should be called upon to offer friendship to the world. It doesn't work that way. People who want to leave the world, come to the Church. The Church is the Escape Committee. It should not be expected to support sinful people in actions which God hates. All that said, Christians should be able to treat one kind of sinner the same as another - with basic human dignity and respect. I agree with you.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

A whole lot of 'fact' with no facts . . . . .

A whole lot of evasion, with a lotta evasion.

If Tom and Dick can get legally married, what principle exists that would stop Tom, Dick and Harry to get married?

What does it matter? The Church and God need not recognize the marriage just because the law allows it. It's not going to affect how the Church and God recognize your marriage. It doesn't concern you or the Church.

The Church cried the world would end with giving women rights, and freeing slaves, and allowing interracial marriage. Empirically those threats have been emotional threats with no substance. I can't imagine a reason this would be any different.


YOU>>>>>Just catching up in this thread and want to make the point I used the same verse as Nomad, Matt 5:28 in my post in the other thread, to answer the exact same question. Thanks for not jumping on me there, like you have on Nomad, here. But it doesn't look good. As we say in England (and this is not a gender-sensitive saying, despite the mention of a 'lady' in it) 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.' Your reaction to Nomad's legitimate answer has not recommended you as thinking rationally about the issues supposedly under discussion. <<<<<< YOU

>>>>>ME>>>> The reaction is to a pattern of behavior from Nomad, not his one comment. Why should I pretend you two are being rational when you ignore my arguments and just keep spewing your opinion. Opinions avoid the arguments, not engage them. It's a lecture, not a conversation. You need the CON to be conversation. You need the CONtrast for CONversation. You need to mix the two views together. You speak parallel to me, not with me. You can justify his behavior all you wish. It's a distraction not a contribution.<<<<<<ME<<<<

YOU>>>>>>As I quoted above... 'homosexual sins'... it doesn't matter whose sins they are, sins are sins, just as Nomad stated. Sin comes from the heart, until it has been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. <<<<<YOU<<<<<<<

>>>>>ME>>>>Ok, I assume this is a non sequitur and has no business here as this isn't a chat about homosexual sins. HOWEVER IF, like NOMAD who tried to evade the issue after being clocked on it, you mean that because they are homosexual they are in constant lust, then you are just an empty minded bigot. TO make that claim, you'd have to acknowledge/claim that all heterosexuals were the same. Homosexuals are not inherently sex obsessed. Many homosexuals don't really like sex for that matter. If Heterosexuals aren't inherently evil hearted towards sex, homosexuals need not be either.<<<<<ME<<<

>>>>YOU>>>The other point which glares to me most obviously, is you don't seem to understand that homosexual behaviour, <<<<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>>>Reallly, this has you putting yourself in the position of the one WITH THE RIGHT answer and therefore able to be the Canon for who knows what. In other words, anyone that doesn't say what you believe is wrong. Which would go a long ways to explaining why you don't directly interface with your opponents comments, but talk parallel to them. It's beneath you to address things that are wrong. This is a Narcissisitic Personality Disorder trait. I'm not saying you are, but I have dealt with the trait, and even if you aren't NPD, the behavior is done for the same reasons. <<<<<ME

YOU>>>>>like the rich young ruler's sin of idolatry (in his case, of his wealth) - idolatry breaks the first commandment of the law of God, which in itself is a sin, regardless of how it plays out in thoughts and actions. <<<<YOU<<<<

Ok, so Jesus is a liar. He acknowledged the rich young ruler had eternal life. He merely proved the Rich Young Ruler wasn't finished in his maturation/perfection/telioo.

>>>YOU>>>>>Your following argument is totally flawed, as I have just explained.<<<<YOU<<<

Your proclamation is noted. Your reasoning has been answered already in other places, those arguments were ignored too. I don't know why I bother to speak to you and Nomad as you won't respond to what is said, just ignore it and contradict it. HOW HOLY AND INTELLECTUAL YOU ARE!!! Yes, it's annoying when someone just proclaims you wrong and doesn't interact with refutation.

YOU>>>>>>There are parts - such as man being made in God's image - which are extremely pertinent to understanding God properly. <<<<<YOU<<<<

And of course YOU have all the understanding. I wonder why STRAT isn't jumping you here, this is what he accused me of doing, and I didn't do it, here you are doing it and he's silent. Seems a holy huddle of hellraisers in da house.

YOU>>>>>>For instance, the part where Paul says to ex-homosexuals, 'And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God... YOU<<<<<

>>>>ME>>>>>You are a flat out manipulative liar. Paul gave a description of several types of people, all sharing one root sin. But you want to pick the homosexuals ALONE from that list and proclaim that's who he addressed. That's dishonest as hell. You have no business in an adult conversation.
>>>VERSE>>>>9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [fn6] effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,<<<<VERSE<<<< Homosexuals is one of several unrighteous. The UNRIGHTEOUS is who he is discussing in the verse you posted, NOT homosexuals. I should ignore you on the spot for such dishonest offense. <<<<<ME<<<

YOU>>>>>It is true that Paul is talking about abstinence,<<<<YOU<<<<<

>>>>ME>>>>ABSTINENCE ISN"T ANYWHERE NEAR THIS CONVERSATION. WHY DO YOU DELIBERATELY MISLEAD? ME<<<<

YOU>>>>>A person who was 'gay' does have to stop thinking that they 'are gay', <<<<YOU<<<<

ME>>>>>>A person who is HETEROSEXUAL must stop thinking of heterosexual sex or they are guilty of the same thing. Wait, you aren't thinking about sex right now? NEITHER AM I! Guess what, I am at work with a person right now who is as gay as they come and he isn't thinking about sex. DO YOU KNOW WHY? Because he's at work doing his job. He's not obsessed with sex like apparently you guys are. ME You have to step out of your bigotry long enough to learn some things about those you speak about. Being gay doesn't make you a sex addict. That's idiotic.<<<<

YOU>>>once they have given their life to Christ, because that cannot be true. They may not have an immediate change of thinking, because we all need our minds renewed, but, a Christian cannot 'be gay'. A Christian can have 'been gay', until becoming a Christian.<<<<<YOU<<<

>>>>>ME>>>>>But the BIBLE says simply, do not lay with man. It's not talking about their inclinations, it is talking about COITUS, SEX, FORNICATING, and that is the ONLY ASPECT OF A HOMOSEXUALS LIFE IT ADDRESSES. If you deny this again without proving it in scripture I'll ignore you for the liar you are being. <<<<<ME<<<<

YOU>>>No, because it's the way God made everyone (apart from those who have a genetic disorder).<<<<YOU

ME>>>>>So, why did God make Gay animals. They can't reason like man can, yet there are many gay animals, nearly every species has been witnessed having gay sex. Apparently that's how they were made as they can't LUST like a human can.

Not to mention you speak for GOD there. GOD made JUDAS ISCARIOT kill His son. God made Pharaoh imprison His people. God creates evil in the world too. Whatever you think of Homosexuality, unless you have spoken to GOD, and aren't just playing God in a chat room, you have no clue to his reasoning on why there are GAY people. So stop posturing and pretending. <<<<<ME<<<



YOU>>>>>Hopefully now you see why I don't like the term... because it dignifies the most profound corruption of the image of God. It is the opposite of what He intended through normal heterosexual instincts - children - increase.YOU<<<<<

ME>>>>>Well in the verse you posted above so were fornicators which are heterosexual, idolaters, adulterers, cross dressers, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, Revilers, swindlers... ALL of those are guilty of what you just declared homosexuality to be guilty of. You are a manipulative deceitful person. ME<<<<<



YOU>>>>But this is a very superficial 'take' on the issues.<<<YOU<<<

ME>>>>> NO it's not, it's what the dang BIBLE SAYS on the topic. It says HOMOSEXUAL SEX is the sin, not homosexuals who are attracted to the same sex and not having sex. YOu can't show me a verse that says other wise. YOu showed the ONE PLACE that the definition MIGHT be called an all purpose homosexual, except the words compounded to make homosexual literally work out as man who lays with man. It still has the sexual aspect to it. It was Greek culture. Go rent Caligula and watch it. Get a feel for a dramatized version of the appetites. Caligula was in power around the time of Christ. <<<<ME<<<

YOU>>>>>They should have chosen a name for themselves that didn't put their sexual proclivities in the face of society, and, they should have worked harder to understand the spiritual implications of their clamour being met.<<<<<<YOU<<<<

ME>>How insane are you? They would die to choose a name for themselves. They did GAY. Homosexual wasn't chosen by them. If HOMSEXUAL means they only think of sex, then Heterosexual means THEY TOO only think of sex. Your reasoning is pretty third gradeish for someone insisting THEY have all the RIGHT VIEWS on things. Excuse me while I barf, and giggle maniacly simultaneously.<<<<<ME<<<<<



>>>>YOU>>>I did count, if you remember, and there are thirtyfive references to fornication or fornicator in the NT, <<<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>>And when you add all the references to heterosexual sex, not just fornication, you have GOD finding it MUCH MORE OF A CONCERN to address the heterosexuals than the small minority of Homosexuals. I wonder why that is? Probably because it was more necessary, the bigger worry. <<<<ME<<<

>>>>YOU>>>>How comfortable sodomy is in the place of worship. It has no conscience whatever. <<<< YOU<<< Keep on target please? Your blabbering on with non sequiturs is a bore and not necessary.


>>>>>YOU>>>>>>If there is a point to these last comments from me, it is to emphasise that a non-practising homosexual is not safe from the wrath of God on the basis of not practising. Ceasing from sin is related to a new heart and a new spirit.<<<<<YOU<<<<<<

ME>>>>>>>Excuse me while I side with the Bible. IF you knew the hearts of man to know if a homosexual was lusting after others of the same sex, you'd see your heart for the judgmental, narcissistic, presumptive rock that it is. I"ll stick with the Bible where it says MAN LAY WITH MAN.... The lay there means sex. Fornicate. Bumpin uglies, horizontal hooligans, parking the car, etc... NOWHERE does it say a person who is attracted to the same sex is sinning. They needs carry through with it. EXCEPT if they lust a person, but that is a sin of lust, and they are equally as guilty as heterosexuals. <<<<ME<<<<

YOU>>>>>I note, too, that much of what you have written in both threads, rails against the Church for both having a standard and for having the wrong standard. <<<<<<YOU<<<

>>>>>ME>>>>As long as bigotry, like yours, is the standard, I'm obligated to rail against it. I'm not a lemming, I'm a priest of the Order of Melchizedek who's High Priest, Joshua as His mother called Him is the head. To do any less would be to let the heathens lead the church unchecked.<<<<ME<<<<<

YOU>>>> Probably Christians are the last people who should be called upon to offer friendship to the world. It doesn't work that way. <<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>YET that is exactly what Christ commanded. I love how you write your own damnable Bible. ME<<<


>>>YOU>>>People who want to leave the world, come to the Church.<<<<YOU<<<<

ME>>>>Oh you are outta this world ok.ME<<<<

YOU>>> The Church is the Escape Committee. It should not be expected to support sinful people in actions which God hates. <<<<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>Jesus Christ commanded exactly the opposite. Exactly the opposite of that. You are Anti Christ. That is about all I needed to see. I should have read from the bottom up.<<<<<ME<<<<

ME>>> I'd suggest some serious help from friends that know you well and ask them point blank how often you think you know it all and are harde headed and miss the point or don't listen.

Christ said that Any fool can love their brother. But God loves even His enemies. That sort of Love provides their necessisities to them. Then Christ said you should be perfect like God is perfect. The conversation is on how to love people, the word Perfect is synonomous with Mature in this context, so you are to love people as completely/maturely as God does. The example is even your enemies/HIS enemies and provide for them.

Another conversation about providence was if they ask for your coat give them your shirt.

The GLBT community has asked for protection under the law. They have had to demand this before to avoid Xian bigotry just to get employment. They are having to do it again.

The Xian bigots won't give them the coat, much less the shirt. In fact they flail them and try to make it harder/worse on them.

You call that Xian love. I call myself anything that won't affiliate myself with you and WILL affiliate myself with God's Word.

 

[aspen]

Marriage outside the church and civil unions are sinful before God. Yet, they are both recognized by the government, not because they are morally right; because they protect the rights of the individuals who are involved in the relationship. Why shouldn't homosexuals have access to that same protection?

Claiming that homosexual marriage destroys God's institution of marriage only reveals a lack of faith in the works of God. People who consider other people who are not related to themselves as 'family' are not attacking the sanctity of the family - the same is true with homosexuals that want to call their relationship 'marriage'. Opposition to legalized homosexual marriage is a waste of time and only benefits politicians as an effective wedge issue.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Marriage outside the church and civil unions are sinful before God. Yet, they are both recognized by the government, not because they are morally right; because they protect the rights of the individuals who are involved in the relationship. Why shouldn't homosexuals have access to that same protection?

Claiming that homosexual marriage destroys God's institution of marriage only reveals a lack of faith in the works of God. People who consider other people who are not related to themselves as 'family' are not attacking the sanctity of the family - the same is true with homosexuals that want to call their relationship 'marriage'. Opposition to legalized homosexual marriage is a waste of time and only benefits politicians as an effective wedge issue.

fruits of it being factions and divisions..... whatta gal 5 say about that fruit?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

I'll try to be succint.

HOWEVER IF, like NOMAD who tried to evade the issue after being clocked on it, you mean that because they are homosexual they are in constant lust, then you are just an empty minded bigot.

He didn't do what you accused him of, and I didn't either. Why not just ask simple questions? It will save energy and angst for where they are really needed.

>>>>YOU>>>The other point which glares to me most obviously, is you don't seem to understand that homosexual behaviour, <<<<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>>>Reallly, this has you putting yourself in the position of the one WITH THE RIGHT answer and therefore able to be the Canon for who knows what. In other words, anyone that doesn't say what you believe is wrong. Which would go a long ways to explaining why you don't directly interface with your opponents comments, but talk parallel to them. It's beneath you to address things that are wrong. This is a Narcissisitic Personality Disorder trait. I'm not saying you are, but I have dealt with the trait, and even if you aren't NPD, the behavior is done for the same reasons. <<<<<ME

YOU>>>>>like the rich young ruler's sin of idolatry (in his case, of his wealth) - idolatry breaks the first commandment of the law of God, which in itself is a sin, regardless of how it plays out in thoughts and actions. <<<<YOU<<<<

You should have finished reading the sentence. Again you have written a whole paragraph which was avoidable, and contributed nothing to the discussion, except to give yourself a platform to sling a few insults. An alternative would be to say... 'I see the connection you're making.' Which begs the question. Do you see the connection?

Ok, so Jesus is a liar. He acknowledged the rich young ruler had eternal life. He merely proved the Rich Young Ruler wasn't finished in his maturation/perfection/telioo.

Stop right there please. You can't say 'Jesus was a liar' and then breeze on as if that is not heresy.

Secondly, Jesus did not acknowledge the rich young ruler had eternal life. The rich young ruler disobeyed Him.

Perhaps you should check that up in Mark 10 for yourself, because I definitely want to see a retraction of what you posted about Jesus, and that should be an easy thing for you to do, for the man who said, ' I am the Truth'.

Yes, it's annoying when someone just proclaims you wrong and doesn't interact with refutation.

What is wrong with you? Every piece of refutation you get, you ignore or complain about, as if it's invalid because you don't agree with it. Then you start moaning about not being conversed with. It takes two to tango.

And of course YOU have all the understanding.

I've got enough to be able to explain it to someone who doesn't have it. That doesn't make me narcissistic, or wrong, and, there are other ways you could have reacted to that statement. Politely, for starters.

You are a flat out manipulative liar. Paul gave a description of several types of people, all sharing one root sin. But you want to pick the homosexuals ALONE from that list and proclaim that's who he addressed. That's dishonest as hell. You have no business in an adult conversation.

No, you are overstepping all the lines, and it's all unnecessary.

The fact is, this is a thread about homosexuality. The verse I quoted 'such were some of you', includes them. That was the point I was making. The homosexuals are not homosexuals any more if they've been washed and sanctified as Paul defines. Obviously, the thieves are no longer thieves, as long as they remain stopped from stealing (and so on) - which is what Paul is exhorting. Why do you keep over-reacting? Most of what you've said to and about posters here since you came to CyB (ChristianityBoard) has been pure projection. And then you accuse others of strawmen!

The UNRIGHTEOUS is who he is discussing in the verse you posted, NOT homosexuals. I should ignore you on the spot for such dishonest offense

You over-reacted. The verse I quoted is about homosexuality as much as any other kind of unrighteousness.

YOU>>>>>It is true that Paul is talking about abstinence,<<<<YOU<<<<<

>>>> ME>>>>ABSTINENCE ISN"T ANYWHERE NEAR THIS CONVERSATION. WHY DO YOU DELIBERATELY MISLEAD? ME<<<<

YOU>>>>>A person who was 'gay' does have to stop thinking that they 'are gay', <<<<YOU<<<<

ME>>>>>>A person who is HETEROSEXUAL must stop thinking of heterosexual sex or they are guilty of the same thing. Wait, you aren't thinking about sex right now? NEITHER AM I! Guess what, I am at work with a person right now who is as gay as they come and he isn't thinking about sex. DO YOU KNOW WHY? Because he's at work doing his job. He's not obsessed with sex like apparently you guys are. ME You have to step out of your bigotry long enough to learn some things about those you speak about. Being gay doesn't make you a sex addict. That's idiotic.<<<<

Do you know that you are the only person in this thread who has talked about having sex on the mind all the time?

No-one else has suggested it.

>>>>>ME>>>>>But the BIBLE says simply, do not lay with man. It's not talking about their inclinations, it is talking about COITUS, SEX, FORNICATING, and that is the ONLY ASPECT OF A HOMOSEXUALS LIFE IT ADDRESSES. If you deny this again without proving it in scripture I'll ignore you for the liar you are being. <<<<<ME<<<<

I am not a liar, and you are ignoring the plainest fact of salvation, that a person has to have a change of heart towards sin. If this is an unfamiliar part of the gospel to you - as it is to many people - I have now alterted you to the fact of its presence.

Not to mention you speak for GOD there. GOD made JUDAS ISCARIOT kill His son. God made Pharaoh imprison His people. God creates evil in the world too. Whatever you think of Homosexuality, unless you have spoken to GOD, and aren't just playing God in a chat room, you have no clue to his reasoning on why there are GAY people. So stop posturing and pretending. <<<<<ME<<<

Three points. First, I've already given you the reasons there are 'GAY people', much of which is clear in scripture. Second, therefore I'm neither posturing nor pretending. Third, I've probably known gay people for longer than you, so, the thoughts I've offered are measured by both experience and Bible study, and are very far from a stab in the dark. And yes, God Himself has spoken to me about this topic, in answer to my need for understanding it.

Can I make a request, now?

That you accept I believe (and know from the testimonies I've heard) that God's dealing with so-called homosexuals, means they are no longer homosexual. Get that? They stop even having the desires.

Some of the men get married and have children and live happy, healthy, heterosexaul lives, because that's what God designed their anatomy for, and He restores everything in them which was reversed, back into its proper order.

Several times now, I've explained that a person needs a change of heart towards sin, to be saved from the wrath of God. So do homosexuals. Every kind of sinner does. Simply stopping the behaviour without the change of heart doesn't deal with the root of sin which is in every human being since Adam. But the cirucmcision of Christ, does, if they want it.

There are also men who don't get married, to whom God gives grace to remain single. But they all have a testimony of having been delivered from homosexuality, because that's a natural outcome of turning to God from sin.

ME>>>>And when you add all the references to heterosexual sex, not just fornication, you have GOD finding it MUCH MORE OF A CONCERN to address the heterosexuals than the small minority of Homosexuals. I wonder why that is? Probably because it was more necessary, the bigger worry. <<<<ME<<<

Prove it, please? The minority in scripture are the ones who obeyed God.

'... You are a manipulative deceitful person.

You have no grounds to say that. All I've done is point to scripture and tell you that I know what it means, and you have taken the opportunity to malign me one way or another in almost every response - ignoring the topic by comparison. Sometimes when people create diversions from the subject in hand, it's because they have nothing more edifying to say. I would like to believe you're having a bad day, and that you're capable of better posts on better days, but evidence would be welcome!

The Church is the Escape Committee. It should not be expected to support sinful people in actions which God hates. <<<<<YOU<<<<<

ME>>>Jesus Christ commanded exactly the opposite. Exactly the opposite of that. You are Anti Christ. That is about all I needed to see. I should have read from the bottom up.<<<<<ME<<<<

Sorry... I guess what you wrote doesn't mean what it says... Or it oughtn't to, because Jesus does not 'support sinful people in actions which God hates', and if you think that's what He taught, then you have Him all wrong.

This is what His number one disciple Peter has to say: 1 Forasmuch then as Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 1 Peter 4

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The conversation is on how to love people

Do you honestly think you've made a wholly loving response to my post?

Actually Christ didn't say 'any fool can love his brother', or anything even close to that. But He did say 'love your enemies', although I don't consider 'homosexuals', enemies. They are enemies to the cross of Christ, until they have a change of heart, but then so are we all - until we have a change of heart.

There's a world of difference between being like Christ to people in their situation, and, expecting the Church to welcome them in before they are actually Church 'members' through their own personal faith in Christ.

Another conversation about providence was if they ask for your coat give them your shirt.

This is a different conversation completely, from trying to convince us that a person who has not had a change of heart towards sin, has changed sufficiently to be saved from the wrath of God, simply by abstaining from an activity.


Regarding the last few lines of your post, really, you're saying it all to the wrong person. You are conjecturing that I am in agreement with the way some Christians treat some people - regardless of what the differences are that some Christians find intolerable - but actually, you have no real idea what I know or don't know, and anyway, the little I've said has been rejected by you, as well as turning certain quotes from scripture upside down, perhaps accidentally. Despite this and my previous effort to put the 'con' into conversation with you, you are all but implaccable when someone stands up to you.

I hope you have a good evening, and feel better tomorrow.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

He didn't do what you accused him of, and I didn't either. Why not just ask simple questions? It will save energy and angst for where they are really needed.

Show me I'm wrong. I'll admit to being wrong. But so far, that's the best answer. I HAVE asked you both how you meant the "in the hearts" verse. Neither has answered. Lacking an answer, my assumption stands as most likely. Don't whine. Show ME I AM WRONG!



You should have finished reading the sentence. Again you have written a whole paragraph which was avoidable, and contributed nothing to the discussion, except to give yourself a platform to sling a few insults. An alternative would be to say... 'I see the connection you're making.' Which begs the question. Do you see the connection?

Ok, so you just ignored the paragraph, and said it was wrong. You addressed none of it, you just summarily ignored it as if you were God judging the nations. Nice. And you wonder why I'm not keen on you and your passive aggression? And I do nothing to insult you. You have exhibited a behavior. I can't diagnose you as NPD that's above my paygrade. But you have behavior that would meet the standards of some of the requirements for diagnoses.


Stop right there please. You can't say 'Jesus was a liar' and then breeze on as if that is not heresy.

I am not saying he is. You said he is because YOUR conclusion disagrees with his. If we assume YOUR conclusion is right, then Jesus comments were false. Being GOD I'd say it would HAVE to be on purpose.


Secondly, Jesus did not acknowledge the rich young ruler had eternal life. The rich young ruler disobeyed Him.

Perhaps you should check that up in Mark 10 for yourself, because I definitely want to see a retraction of what you posted about Jesus, and that should be an easy thing for you to do, for the man who said, ' I am the Truth'.

My comment wasn't about Jesus. It was about you. Please read slower and at least make SOME effort to keep up. Kepha was on this angle somewhere as well.



What is wrong with you? Every piece of refutation you get, you ignore or complain about, as if it's invalid because you don't agree with it. Then you start moaning about not being conversed with. It takes two to tango.

Have you lost your mind? All this is is pure reflection. Show me examples of this. Show me where I've done this behavior. I've shown you numerous times with it. You are..... never mind. Forget it... I've done this before. You are narcissistic enough the conversation is a foregone conclusion. You are now doing the most childish of ways around an argument. We are done. Good luck with that life.

 

[dragonfly]

First of all, XP, because your post was so long, the system couldn't handle my response properly.

As a result, the very last piece of communication I had made, was missed off. Here it is:

Today, however, I may not have time to go back over your post to pick out all the off-topic comments you directed at me personally, which, I suspect, if they had been said to you, you would have felt unnecessarily accused, and would also have commented. So when you say....

And I do nothing to insult you.

Well, perhaps you call it something you can justify to yourself, like, figures of speech, but the way it comes over to the recipient, you are indulging yourself in keeping alive patterns of expression which in no way glorify God, and in no way enhance the 'con' in conversation, despite that every time you write them, something in you is satisfied by the exercise.

Ideally, you will start starving that something, until all you can write is seasoned with such grace, that even if you're way off track with your arguments, people will respect you for the respect you give both to God and man. I don't doubt you are giving a certain amount of respect by holding with the attempt at discussion, coming back again and again, but you'll need to take on board that Christians already have an authority who is right about everything, and we are here to bless and grow with each other, under the guidance and teaching of the One who has all the answers.

Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

 

[Groundzero]

First of all, XP, because your post was so long, the system couldn't handle my response properly.

Either that, or XP might actually spend less time writing ad homin comments and more time using the quote function. But that's probably making life too easy for everyone.

 

[HammerStone]

Alright, that's enough, let's get back on topic. Thanks.

 

[IHSscj]

O.K., I confess: I haven't read the whole original post by th1b.taylor. Nor have I paged through all the responses (what, 34 pages?). But as a gay christian seeking to deepen my walk with Christ, I need to start my response by asking: Which scripture is thought to most clearly condemn gayness? Romans 1? Leviticus 20: 13? I Corinthians 6? :mellow:

Or if some1 can refer me to a post, that will be fine.

I started a topic on this, "Gay Person Reconsidering Gayness," and now I can't find it. Oh, well -- we can deal with it here. :unsure:

 

[Rex]

Welcome to the board IHSscj
And there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ. So I wouldn't know where to look.
My God Richly Bless You

I would like to add that you have taken the first and last step, the largest step possible in seeking a greater relationship in the Lord.
That is a heart filled with the truth. Nothing is more pleasing before the Lord than a truthful heart. That He can deal with and He will

Be filled with joy you have entered the door.

You may find this post encouraging as well
http://www.christian...12/#entry172521

...---...

 

[dragonfly]

Hi IHSscj,

I'm relatively new here and haven't read this whole thread either, and I think I remember your thread, but don't remember what happened in it or to it. It seems to have been removed, probably because HammerStone wants to keep this topic in one place - here.

But as a gay christian seeking to deepen my walk with Christ, I need to start my response by asking: Which scripture is thought to most clearly condemn gayness? Romans 1? Leviticus 20: 13? I Corinthians 6? :mellow:

All those scriptures have a great deal in them which could be discussed. I would add to them the passage at the end of Leviticus 18, because the start of Leviticus 18 gives God's perspective, knowledge, and reason for abhorring certain sexual sins. The following are the verses I have in mind:


Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I [am] the LORD your God.

The intervening verses deal with other abominations. Then, five times, God links them with the land itself.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourns among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God
.

Basically, God is instructing Israel to be ware of idolatry and the spirits which are behind the idols. He also forbids all idolatry.

The development of idols is covered by Paul in Romans 1. The 1 Corinthians 6 passage is towards Christians not returning to past sins.

 

[Rex]

...---...

 

[IHSscj]

Starting with the two passages from Leviticus, then:

Leviticus 18: 22 & 20:13
As I understand the Torah, the first 5 books of the bible, they were originally a complete legal code covering virtually every aspect of life that the Hebrews might encounter in Canaan for (as we might say) the forseeable future. There is a passage in Numbers 27: 1- 11 that seems to deal with a point in the law that did not actually cover the situation at hand, so Moses brought the issue before Yahweh, and Yahweh resolved it.

On the whole however, the complete law was binding, as James 2: 10 makes clear. You could not "cherry-pick" the various provisions; there were no "blue laws." But things changed, as the bible itself revealed: Isaiah 56: 1- 8: foreigners were no longer kept from worship in the Spirit. Further, after the exile in Babylon and the return to Isreal, Jerusalem was no longer the only place in which temple worship of Yahweh was possible. And in the Greek Testament, there were even more wholesale departures from the law per se. (As evidenced by almost the entire Letter to the Galatians) But the first & second commandments were to be kept to, as I venture to do today. What is more important, to my mind (because it is so widely ignored) is the reality that the original premise of the Torah is still true today for the devoted Christian: every last aspect of our lives -- the credit cards, the electronics, the car that won't start, the cashier that snaps at you -- all of it is covered by the Mighty Will of God. We do not have a complete code laid out as it was in the Torah, but we have God's guiding Spirit when we ask for it. In fact, we have God's nagging Spirit when we forget to ask for it. When we snap back at the cashier, God is there to say, "Remember when I was silent before Annas? (John 18: 19- 24) How are you able to treat him/her differently than I treated you at Calvary?"

So, when it comes to gayness, it is difficult to apply a fraction of the code, without also thinking of other parts, say, Deuteronomy 25: 11- 12. :mellow:

 

[Groundzero]

Starting with the two passages from Leviticus, then:

Leviticus 18: 22 & 20:13
As I understand the Torah, the first 5 books of the bible, they were originally a complete legal code covering virtually every aspect of life that the Hebrews might encounter in Canaan for (as we might say) the forseeable future. There is a passage in Numbers 27: 1- 11 that seems to deal with a point in the law that did not actually cover the situation at hand, so Moses brought the issue before Yahweh, and Yahweh resolved it.

On the whole however, the complete law was binding, as James 2: 10 makes clear. You could not "cherry-pick" the various provisions; there were no "blue laws." But things changed, as the bible itself revealed: Isaiah 56: 1- 8: foreigners were no longer kept from worship in the Spirit. Further, after the exile in Babylon and the return to Isreal, Jerusalem was no longer the only place in which temple worship of Yahweh was possible. And in the Greek Testament, there were even more wholesale departures from the law per se. (As evidenced by almost the entire Letter to the Galatians) But the first & second commandments were to be kept to, as I venture to do today. What is more important, to my mind (because it is so widely ignored) is the reality that the original premise of the Torah is still true today for the devoted Christian: every last aspect of our lives -- the credit cards, the electronics, the car that won't start, the cashier that snaps at you -- all of it is covered by the Mighty Will of God. We do not have a complete code laid out as it was in the Torah, but we have God's guiding Spirit when we ask for it. In fact, we have God's nagging Spirit when we forget to ask for it. When we snap back at the cashier, God is there to say, "Remember when I was silent before Annas? (John 18: 19- 24) How are you able to treat him/her differently than I treated you at Calvary?"

So, when it comes to gayness, it is difficult to apply a fraction of the code, without also thinking of other parts, say, Deuteronomy 25: 11- 12. :mellow:

Ok, how about we skip to the NT, since I'm not one for having a discussion about the law, and its effects.


Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

God gives these people over to a reprobate, or worthless mind. Ummm, what are we talking about here? I would say that it's a pretty safe assumption that it's homosexuality . . . . of course, I could be mistaken.

 

[Rex]

Starting with the two passages from Leviticus, then:

Leviticus 18: 22 & 20:13
As I understand the Torah, the first 5 books of the bible, they were originally a complete legal code covering virtually every aspect of life that the Hebrews might encounter in Canaan for (as we might say) the forseeable future. There is a passage in Numbers 27: 1- 11 that seems to deal with a point in the law that did not actually cover the situation at hand, so Moses brought the issue before Yahweh, and Yahweh resolved it.

On the whole however, the complete law was binding, as James 2: 10 makes clear. You could not "cherry-pick" the various provisions; there were no "blue laws." But things changed, as the bible itself revealed: Isaiah 56: 1- 8: foreigners were no longer kept from worship in the Spirit. Further, after the exile in Babylon and the return to Isreal, Jerusalem was no longer the only place in which temple worship of Yahweh was possible. And in the Greek Testament, there were even more wholesale departures from the law per se. (As evidenced by almost the entire Letter to the Galatians) But the first & second commandments were to be kept to, as I venture to do today. What is more important, to my mind (because it is so widely ignored) is the reality that the original premise of the Torah is still true today for the devoted Christian: every last aspect of our lives -- the credit cards, the electronics, the car that won't start, the cashier that snaps at you -- all of it is covered by the Mighty Will of God. We do not have a complete code laid out as it was in the Torah, but we have God's guiding Spirit when we ask for it. In fact, we have God's nagging Spirit when we forget to ask for it. When we snap back at the cashier, God is there to say, "Remember when I was silent before Annas? (John 18: 19- 24) How are you able to treat him/her differently than I treated you at Calvary?"

So, when it comes to gayness, it is difficult to apply a fraction of the code, without also thinking of other parts, say, Deuteronomy 25: 11- 12. :mellow:

I don't have much time today sorry, I missed your post.
But read around Exodus 25:16
Then compare it with
Deuteronomy 31:26
And consider what the Lord revels to you.