There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Taken from the Bible Romans 1 vs.26-31.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
The Bible said it not my words.
- Tamara
September 5, 2008 9:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
All scripture is given in a particular historical context. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. The particular historical context of Romans 1:26-27 is shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
In the first century AD, the Cybele cult was one of the most powerful in the Roman Empire. Cybele worship included orgiastic sexual rites and ritual bloodletting by priests and priestesses, similar to the practice of Baal worshipers in the Old Testament.
“And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.” I Kings 18:28.
In first century Rome, religious festivals honoring Cybele were celebrated in one of the five Cybele temples or in the streets. Castrated, long haired priests of Cybele preceded the image of the goddess, beating drums and cymbals, showing off their colorful clothing.
The priests of Cybele were called galli, referring to their castrated eunuch status. Female priestesses and castrated, male eunuch priests functioned as representatives of the goddess, offering themselves sexually to male worshipers. These religious practices flourished in first century Rome and this is what Paul prohibited in Romans 1:26-27.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 5, 2008 11:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
Though it is the Word of God is it not? Was it to just those people that God was speaking to? The act is pagan in nature. God created us to go forth and multiply. The only reason why we would be have a sexual relationship is to create that life. What about that life in the seed that you are wasting, do you want to be responsible for the killing of lives because your to selfish to think that God might have better things for you and that kid?! Think about it
- Timmy September 11, 2008 2:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
It is not clear your claim that the context in which Romans was written has to do exclusively with the Cybele cult. Paul wrote that letter to explain his view of the gospel to the romans, and not as a corrective to specific problems as he did on the epistles to the corinthians. He begins explaining how idolatry and pride, led humanity to other sins when their hearts separated from God, including homosexuality.
And I think you're being imprecise too in the other passages you quote in the arguments:
1. With respect to Adam and Eve, he created them as sexual beings who could fulfill his purpose of 'filling the earth and increase in number' (and the problem of over population doesn't invalidate the command, it was caused by not managing sexuality as God established it) And though later came poligamy, it occurred after fall, and then on the new testament is explicit that godly people should be married to one woman.
2. When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices (which, by the way, also violate the command to fill the earth and increase in number).
Is so clear that two chapters ahead he repeats the command in Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." and in this occasion there is no sign it is directly related to the cult of Molech.
I think the people at Exodus, as well as you, share the same general goal: to bring those with wanted or unwanted same sex attraction close to God. But in that path the means are as important as the ends. And sadly, one of both positions is wrong, and therefore is sinning (if it were Exodus, in not accepting that is God's will that people have same sex attraction; if it is you and the churches that accept homsexuality as normal, the sin will be of encouraging people to accept a sin as a way of life).
I stay with the side that it is a sin.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Oveja wrote:
"When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices"
As Christians, we focus on what the Bible actually says.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
God links the qedeshah, shrine prostitutes and zanah, street prostitutes because what they share in common is a type of prostitution.
“I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, zanah, prostitution, nor your brides, daughters in law when they commit adultery, naaph, idolatrous worship: for themselves are separated with whores, [zanah], female prostitutes, and they sacrifice with harlots, [qedeshah], female shrine prostitutes.” Hosea 4:14.
“And there were also sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes] in the land: and they did according to all the abominations, towebah..." I Kings 14:23.
The Holy Spirit links the abomination-towebah activity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and I Ki 14:23-24 to shrine prostitution.
The Holy Spirit, in I Kings 14:23-24 uses the Hebrew word towebah to describe the abominations of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 and I Kings 14:23-24.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
This Links the sexual activity to shrine prostitution, not homosexuality as we define it today (a committed, faithful, non-cultic relationship between two men or two women).
“And he took away the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes out of the land.” I Kings 15:12.
“And the remnant of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes...” I Kings 22:46.
“And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes], that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove, asherah, sacred poles set up to worship the goddess.” II Kings 23:7.
The Holy Spirit, in II Kings 23:5-10, links qadesh/sodomites with Molech worship
II KIngs 23:5-20 provides another undeniable Link between shrine prostitutes and Molech worship. Leviticus 20:5 also Links Molech worship to shrine prostitution, twice using the Hebrew word zanah (prostitute) to describe the illicit sexual worship of Molech.
The bottom line is this. No matter how you slice it, the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is pagan worship of the fertility goddess and same sex shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between same sex couples.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Abomination.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The context is important, I am not denying that, but we must ask ourselves what is actually condemned. The Leviticul condemnation is not of prostitution, although the Scripture also condemns that activity both in the context of idolatrous worship and street prostitution, but of any sexual actions between two people of the same sex. It is an abomination because it flies in the face of God's intention for sexuality. As previously stated this command is given in a list of commandments that condemn other sexual perversities, that distort the original intended in the sexual gift.
- Periannath September 14, 2008 5:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Probably what you say about the cults in and the way they worshipped is true (I haven't done research about that yet) However, there are things that stand out to me in Romans 1:24-26
"24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
One of them is that it says, God abandoned them. Even though He loved them, His prescence wasn't dwelling with them so there was no sense of truth or conviction.
Second it says that they were abandoned to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired and that because of that they did vile things regarding their bodies. Then it goes on to say that they exchanged the truth for a lie and so they started to worship idols rather than God. Now this is where he addresses homosexuality. Notice how it says that homosexuality is not normal in verse 26 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
By looking at the beginning of verse 24 and verse 26 we can see that before idolatry and homosexuality are addressed, both verses explain that God left them so that they would follow their own desires. I feel like this part is repeated to address separate(even though they could go together) issues.
verse 27 shows the following
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
This part directly addresses lust and homosexuality. ("And the men, INSTEAD OF HAVING NORMAL SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN, BURNED WITH LUST for each other ")
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I offer these helpful free resources which do a great job of explaining the cultural, historical and religious situation Paul addressed in first century Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
Remember that Romans addressed a real historical situation in the first century. Cybele, the fertility goddess, had five temples in her honor in first century Rome.
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
There is no logical or thoughtful way to divorce our modern understanding of Romans 1 from the cultural, historical and religious situation in the first century.
I know it goes against what you've been taught but facts are facts.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I understand your point. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem believing that Paul would address that particular issue(with the cybeles). However I also strongly believe that not only is Paul pointing out idol worship and homosexuality, he is also exposing homosexuality as another issue too.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The problems with your view are manifold.
1. Committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships are not prohibited in the Old Testament, in Sodom or anywhere else.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
What the OT prohibits is shrine prostitution. Therefore there is no prior scriptural basis for Paul to prohibit same sex relationships, except for prohibiting shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
2. Since lesbianism is never condemned in the OT, it is entirely out of context with Paul's argument about idolatry to suddenly inject a one verse condemnation of lesbianism (Romans 1:26) into his idolatry argument.
3. Early Christians understood Romans 1:26 as a reference to non-procreative sex as being unnatural. It was hundreds of years later (around AD 330), when John Chrysostom decided Paul might have been referring to lesbians.
4. If you'll take the time to read the information at the Links in my previous comment to you, you will discover that early Christians DID understand Romans 1:26-27 as referring to shrine prostitution instead of homosexuality.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexuality-Wrong.html
5. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
If Romans 1:26-27 was a reference to shrine prostitution then, its a reference to shrine prostitution now.
That doesn't change simply because someone in the twenty first century decides to take the verses out of their historical context.
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In the opening chapter of Romans the Apostle Paul is not listing a command of "do's and don'ts" but a listing of chronology of the falleness and depravity of mankind. St. Paul is going back to the early history of man's rebellion in turning a way from the true, one and only living God and to the worship of created things and other types of idolatry. Because of this God gave them over to a depraved mind. A chief sign of this rebellion is the inappropriate sexual actions between women and men. It is clear in this homosexual action a high abomination is occurring because it is going directly against the created design of God as revealed in Genesis. It is a rejection of God and his way and an embracing of a counterfeit. This is why prevalent homosexuality in a society is a sign that a society is moving away from God and his truth in open rebellion. It may seem extreme to the modern person but not anymore extreme than the call of all disciples to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. Jesus makes a way out. As someone who has and does struggle with homosexuality this is something I can attest to that the walk is not fun or easy but it is what is truth and what God calls all sinners too, repentance.
May God lead you by his grace to the freedom and changing power that grace brings,
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath September 14, 2008 4:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Spencer-
I appreciate your honesty. It speaks well of your character. That being said, the basis of your viewpoint is Complementarianism - that God intends everyone to be heterosexual, that God is adamantly opposed to every intimate human partnership except those which replicate the Adam and Eve model.
Of course, the Bible never takes that position. That is something which the scripture does not say but which Complementarians read into the Bible. In plainer words, it is a private interpretation.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Complementarity.html
By taking the clobber passages out of context and insisting they refer to homosexuality and lesbianism when no human author of the Bible ever linked Sodom and homosexuality (let alone lesbianism) in any of the 48 passages where Sodom is used, the Ex-Gay industry has convinced you to believe a lie.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 14, 2008 7:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
but we must be careful when we use the word love because as you and I know they mean very different things in different contexts. The Bible is full of examples where people love eachother and are not married. However, this love is not sexual. Do not then presume (please) that I mean that no intimate human partnerships or relationsihps should occur outside of marriage- that is simply not Biblical or true. In this case, according to definintion of complementarianisim you offered, I am not a complementarian. Beyond the possibility of marriage great emotional and social needs and longings are met through parents, siblings, family, best friends, friends, partners, groups, classmates, co-workers, the church, small groups and so forth. All kinds of human relationships can develop the capacity for intimaciy and in more extreme circumstances partnership. This is all good and decent granted the realtionships have a realtive level of health; i.e. not subject to co-dependency, violent, or otherwise harmful to the people invovled in those relationships. What is reserved for marriage though is the fullness of sexual union as embodied in sexual union. That is, although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage. There is a difference between what I am advocating, from the Bible, than what you are claiming I am saying. Unfortunatly I must make a leave now so I will not be able to give a more adequate response to your comment at this time although I did read the two articles you linked and will respond at a later time.
God's peace be upon you,
Spencer
- Periannath September 15, 2008 2:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Spencer-
I should have been more precise in my language. By intimate human partnership, I meant committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex marriages.
Dr. Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader, summarizes the Complementarian position in his 520 page, anti-gay book, The Bible And Homosexual Practice. He says that the creation story in Genesis authorizes only heterosexual union, but never homosexual union.
Gagnon asserts that the Genesis account of creation leaves no room for legitimizing same-sex unions. That is the classic statement of the odd hermeneutic Complementarians use to buttress their position.
Gagnon even insists that homosexual unions can never be legitimately described as loving. His remarks can be found on pages 194, 291, 297, 327, 339 of his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
I don't see any real difference between your position and Dr. Gagnon's position and the position of Joe Dallas and Exodus. All are anti-gay. Here are your words.
"although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/family-values.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 15, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
About complementarianisim:
Although there seems to be a simillarity between the Platonic account of origins and the account given in Scripture but when actually read in the context of the "Symposium" it is quickly realized that simillarities actually fall because the story is so grossly different from the acount given in Genesis. The accuasation that "anti-gay" thearpists are basing their "complementarity" views of of Plato and not Scripture is not substantiated. Those who affirm that homosexuality is sin would find Plato's story in disfavor because it seems to support homosexuality as a natural inclination of some humans. Those who disfavor a text because of its anthetical argument would not use that text to base their thesis unless they were attacking it. Therefore the therapits written about in this article are not basing their views off of Plato's "Symposium" but off of some other source, a source that would not affirm homosexuality is natural or permittable. Plato himself, however, reveals his own opinion about homosexuality later in life. He accounts that it is both against nature and originated when men, because of their lack of self-control, induldged in their passions. I have found this to be true in the experiances of some homosexualities and especially more common in bisexual men.
Only one section of the "clobber" passages are used to connect homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorah so your argument that they are not linked, even if true, does not account the vast majority of Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. Although traditinoally the story of Sodom and Gomorah has been attributed to the sin of homosexuality I wounldn't disagree that it is not the strongest arguments. Other Scriptures, however, are much more clear.
And at last, a response to the arguments of the final argument:
Argument 1: The Bible does not contain the teaching of complementarianisim and therefore that belief is unbiblical and therefore has no clout. It is not God's intention, then, that sexual union must occur in heterosexual, monogomaus relationships within the covenent of marriage.
This is false because in actuality the teaching is in the Bible. It is right in Genesis where this is truth is supressed in the wayward search for loophole for homosexual practice.
"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place." (Gensis 2:21, NASB)
The Hebrew word we get "deep sleep" from is tardemah and even suggests a trance and a type of ecstasy that Adam went under as God made woman from him. It is suggestive of the reality that whom God made for him would be as promised, a suitable helper for him (since none was found previous to that). It is of particular interest that God not,,, make another man but made a woman.
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:22-25, NASB)
Here we see that the one flesh union (which is sexual union, 1 Co 6:16) has an intrinsic desgin between the one man and one woman. This also is the design and beginning of marriage for we see that they are now husband and wife. No marriage in Scripture is never anything but heterosexual and although at times polegomy is practiced by peoople in the Bible that does not mean it is God's favor. We see here from the begining and from the teachings of Jesus and the church that clearly practices were tolerated because of hardness of heart, not because God favored them. As for complementarianism, it is supported by St. Paul- or should we accuse him of basing his view off of Plato too?
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9, NASB)
Also notice that prior to woman being taken from man man is always reffered to as Hb. Adam, man as in mankind, human kind. However, as the man declairs that woman is taken from man he no longer uses the word Adam, as Adam no longer sufices as a description of himself becasue he is no mankind in this sense without woman who is taken from him, he is (Hb.)'iysh, that is, man, male, husband, servant in contrast to the female.
Earlier in the first chapter we can also see that marraige is connected to procreation (which is obviosly not possible in a homosexual context). Plato and the Bible actually agree on one point, homosexuality is against nature as it is against God's created design both for marraige and for the nature of marraige which is built in the complentary aspects of the male and female, masculine and femminine.
argument 2: God doesn't mention in Scripture that he will only bless heterosexual marriages.
Actually it does. Since marriage by nature is heterosexual and God only blesses sexual union in the context of marriage this is taken for granted. In any case, where does it say he will bless a homosexual union? It doesn't, rather He calls it an abomination (not a blessing).
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
argument 3: Pologmy in the Bible proves that the complementary theory is not how God sees it.
There is murder in the Bible, there is rape, there is theft but does God look favorly on any of these things? No! Just like homosexuality all of these things are condemed as sinful. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean it is blessed by God or favored, that is terrible reasoning.
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
argument 4:Because the theory is not in the Bible it is based on what one wishes to see in the Bible, not a good foudation for belief.
What a case of projection. It is just flipping the reality, supressing the truth. The complementary nature of man and woman is clearly in the Scritpure just as it is that homosexuality is sinful. What is really happening is that men are suppressing the truth in their wickedness and gathering around them all kinds of teachers who will teach only what their itching ears want to hear, since they will no longer put up with sound doctrine. I have struggled wtih homosexuality since I hit puberty (6+years) and in the past identified as gay, homosexual, a Christian walking out of homosexuality, ex-gay and at last I can say that I am so glad I shed the false identities the world and the enemy of my soul wanted me to believe because he who is free in the Son of God is free indeed. Although I still struggle with homosexuality at some level it is nothing compared to what it used to be and I have developed attractions for woman (something I never, never in my wildest imaginatinos thought would be possible no matter how many times I quoted all things are possible with God). This article claims that homosexuals interperate the Bible differently because they approach it with their own suppositions (private interpretation) and then accuses those who actually believe what the text says of doing it. It is falid and a satanic deception to those struggling with their gender and sexual idnentity. I say satanic not just to bad mouth it but because satan is the father of lies and when he lies he speaks his native toung. This article and website is about lies and perverting the truth (though be it with whatever peceived good intentions).
- Periannath September 15, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This passage, while it discusses homosexuality somewhat, does not actually say that homosexuality itself is wrong. "Men committed indecent acts with other men" does not specify what those indecent acts actually are. If myself and a male friend go out and destroy other peoples property, I would have committed an indecent act with another man. Also, lust is considered a sin, whether it be heterosexual or otherwise. This reference, while it may convince some that their beliefs are justified, doesn't explicitly make any statement about homosexuality in general.
- roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Tamara,
This scripture has been so misused over the centuries that it's not even funny.
If you read the context of what is being discussed here, it is about temple sexual rituals that were performed by mostly otherwise straight people who would have sex with anyone to please their foreign god. It doesn't even come close to speaking of a loving, committed, covenanted relationship between two people of the same sex.
Sharone
- mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Because of their blindness to God, He gave them over to shameful lusts. He gave them over to sin and sin they did, and in every way possible. Yes your right, it is a sin, but should we try and stop them doing it or should we be leading them out of sin by sharing our faith?
My pastor has a saying "They know what were against, but not what were for!"
Brian Greenaway was an Hell's Angel. He murdered, beat people up for fun, slept around and many other things, without caring about the sins he was doing. One day he turned to Christ with the help of caring christians. Is he more deserving then gays?
You can say "It says in the bible " that they are wrong, or you can support them and lead them to Christ and let them discover for themselves that they need turn their hearts around.
I'd like to add . I know a pair of male christians who love each other and live together, but they claim that they have been celibate since believing. I cannot know if they ever backslide, but who can say that they never slip back to their old ways once in a while.
Would you condemn them for still living together? All I know is that their faith is shown in their lives and that is all I care about as I know that I could have a long list of faults that I should look at in my life.
- mickeyb
June 30, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The list provided in this argument is quite blatantly padded, as the Genesis and Judges passages do not even approach the issue of homosexuality. Shame on you.
- roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
We need to also remember a couple of important things about passages from any Bible. First, even if they WERE Divinely inspired, they've been translated many times over thousands of years. So you have mistakes, misinterpretations, and even the infusion of personal opinion.
Think about this...1000 years from now if someone attempts to translate an English document, they may not realize that the words "man," "men," and even "mankind" have traditionally referred to all human beings regardless of gender. Think about the misinterpretations that would create in translation.
Second, and this is important... the Bible was written during times when human beings weren't as enlightened and educated as they are now. People didn't understand the underlying psychology and science of metaphysics. So Bibles were written to cater to those more ignorant times. They are full of allegories and simplistic rules and laws in order to control behavior during times when reason wasn't as evolved.
So anyone who still views these simplistic and modified writings as the ultimate law of human behavior, is still living in ignorance.
Two more comments:
1. If someone is going to quote the Bible as a guide to behavior, then they need to take heed of the entire teachings of the Bible, including the admonishment to NOT JUDGE others. If you're going to quote the Bible, you lose all credibility if you pass judgement on another person....you're immediately refuting yourself and you look ignorant and foolish. If you truly understand and adopt the teachings as a GUIDE to living, then you will never utter a word against another human being, but instead take care to treat others with compassion and respect. Those of you who quote portions of the Bible out of context of the entire missive (if you believe it to be such) are showing ignorance.
2. Any credible psychologist knows that people often speak up against and condemn things that they don't like within themselves. Almost all homophobic opinions and behavior stem from the speaker's difficulty accepting those feelings within themselves. Homophobic behavior simply reveals a lack of adjustment to homosexual inclinations.
- Lagschnapps September 6, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Quoting the passage that we can not judge is taking a text out of context. The Bible states that in order to judge you have to take the speck from your eye in order to judge correctly. And does not Paul state in his letter to corinthians: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"
I know many people that has changed his homosexual behaviour. Maybe they continue struggling with the attractions, but their acts state they want to change. Another one may be tempted to use drugs or abuse of alcohol. But if he doesn't use them, can we say he is an addict of a drunk? The same is for people with unwanted homosexual desires which live a heterosexual life. Encouraging those who live a homosexual lifestyle doesn't help them.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is another example of misinterpreting the scriptures. The "speck in the eye" is an allegorical reference to the fact that no human being is without fault, therefore not qualified to pass judgements. All human beings have specks in their eyes.
And since when is a saint considered to be a normal human being?
This forum is about homosexuality being a sin. If a homosexual cannot accept his or her feelings and wishes to suppress and ignore them, that is their choice. But that does not make it a sin. JUDGING homosexuality is a sin.
Also, comparing homosexuality to drugs or alcohol is ignorant. It's like comparing a fish to a bicycle.
Again, I point out that using the Bible as the basis for a viewpoint like this is unsound reasoning. It is an allegorical piece of literature, a text translated many times, colored by personal opinion, open to countless interpretations of the same passages depending on a person's viewpoint, and not shared by all humankind. Those who view homosexuality as a sin simply have no concrete basis for their viewpoint. In fact, the most enlightened spiritual teachings refute the concept of "sin" as presented by the christians.
- Lagschnapps September 11, 2008 9:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Homosexuality or any sort of human sexual expression is a "sin" only in a narrowly-focused set of values. The real question to ask is, assuming you love your own individual life, would homosexual behavior on your part be a "sin", "immoral" or "unethical" according to your own set of values?
Nothing genuinely factual and no consistently logical argument thus far leads to the conclusion that homosexual behavior among human beings is objectively and universally sinful, immoral, unethical. The question must always be, what does the individual value? Why? According to what factual information? According to what reason?
The Judeo-Christian philosophies and religions have a long tradition, however, and despite the claims of their adherents, they have never and never will reflect anything resembling authentically objective and universal values. They therefore cannot speak in universal terms in relation to their own group value sets, nor can they rationally compel their values on non-members of their respective groups.
Whatever rights one has derives from the fact of one's own life and from nowhere else. Your own right to your life cannot be factually and logically extended to justify any "right to the life of another". Due to circumstances, one may be a liberty to compel the life of another, however, one cannot have the right to do so. No such right exists. One's own values must reign supreme in one's own life - even if those values are in some way borrowed from the values of others, however, one's own values, again, cannot be factually and logically extended to become the involuntary values of another.
That homosexuality is universally a "sin" in the narrow view of Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs is debated even among members of those philosophies. Those beliefs, those values are not universal and cannot be argued as such. Yes, homosexuality is a sin ... to some. No, it isn't to others. If there is an ethical struggle on the issue, it is this - does one individual have any right to compel their values onto another, whether they be in support or against human homosexual behavior?
Facts and logic suggest the answer to that is - no.
- Naumadd September 6, 2008 3:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
The Bible says in Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9-10.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled) neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality.
Nor cheats ( swindlers and thieves,) nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners, and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God."
Corinthians Chapter 6 vs. 18
"Shun immorality and all sexual looseness (flee from impurity in thought, word, or deed). Any other sin which a man commits is one outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."
The Bible is not out dated and it always confirms itself it is the greatest predicter of human behavior.
Everything that a scientist or philosopher may be a fact or an opinion may last for a moment but the truth stands forever. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
If any who reads these words wants to continue to delude themselves or seer their conscience go ahead because you have been warned.
John 3 vs 16-17 says
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He (even) gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in ( trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish ( come to destruction be lost) but have eternal ( everlasting) life.
For God did not send the Son into the world in order to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him."
John 3 vs. 20
For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works ( his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.
- Tamara September 7, 2008 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι [malakoi] ουτε αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]- I Cor 6:9 in Greek, from the Textus Receptus.
The problem with saying arsenokoitai means homosexual is that, in ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
Conservative evangelical New Testament scholar, Dr. Gordon Fee (he's heterosexual) says that arsenokoitai is rarely used in Greek literature,
“especially when describing homosexual activity.”
The quote is from p. 244 of his commentary, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987, by Dr. Gordon D. Fee.
Dr. Fee still believes I Cor 6:9 refers to homosexual activity but he is honest enough to admit that his opinion is nothing more than "a best guess."
I am not willing to be silent when Christians attack gay or lesbian relationships with faulty "best guesses" while ignoring actual historical usage of arsenokoitai. When we factor in actual usage of the word, arsenokoitai, honesty compels the conclusion that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual.
Some Christians admit that the word arsenokoitai was never used to mean homosexual. Then they insist that arsenokoites means homosexual anyway, since arseno means man and koite is a euphemism for sex. Their reasoning is that when the two parts are combined into one word, it must mean homosexual.
Famous British scholar, Dr. James Barr, (he was heterosexual) 1924-2006, was called by the Times Online obituary,
“probably the most significant Hebrew and Old Testament scholar in Britain in the twentieth century.”
Here is what Dr. Barr said about the etymology of words.
“The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history...
...it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford University Press, New York, 1961, p. 109.
The way arsenokoites was actually used in the ancient Greek language must be our guide as to its meaning. In ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 8, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Sorry, Tamara, but you can't judge whether someone is a Christian or not by whether they are gay or not. Just like I can't judge if someone is a Christian or not by whether or not they are fat. God said gluttony was a sin too, didn't He?
Sharone
- mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
People who are gluttons are not necessarily fat (e.g., bulimia) and people who are fat are not necessarily gluttons (e.g., transplant recipients, people who don't exercise, etc.)
- Christian Mom September 10, 2008 7:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But it is impossible for us to determine who is a christian or not. There is a story that my pastor tells: "Two german missionaries weep on their beer glasses because they saw two fellow women american missionaries wearing jeans." For some drinking beer is a sin. For others women wearing pants are sinners.
I know homosexuality is not a cultural sin. But haven't God dealed with people that allow sins in their lives and still save them. The part of convincing them that is a sin lies on the Holy Spirit, not on us. But I agree church has the responsability to have a clear view of what is and what is not a sin.
- oveja September 11, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.
Your right in that there is no such thing as a gay christian, there is only a christian. Jesus loves us for who we are, if we love him. It hurts Him if we swear, if we curse, if we sex out of marriage, if we murder , if we..... I could go on.
The thing is, He will always love us and forgive us. He will also lead us to walk a closer walk with Him. If a gay turns to Christ, Christ will lead him on his path. As fellow christians, it's not are job to condemn but to build up and love as Christ loves us.
If a prostitute with a habit handed their lives to Christ, I wouldn't expect them to stop earning a living in the only way they know how, even if it is sinning. They would need our support and understanding to help them move into a new and productive career over a period of time. They would also need to be taught (with love) the message of the bible and help to understand how to accept His unconditional forgiveness.
Why do you seem to have difficulty with showing His love to fellow christians on their path?
- mickeyb June 30, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is what Christ say about marriage relationships & sexual immorality.
Mark Chapter 10 vs. 6-9
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: So then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Romans 1 vs 25-32.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. A-men. 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: 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. 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; Being filled with all unrighteousness, maliciousness; full of envy murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This is how you know you belong to God.
I John 1 vs 8-10
If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]. If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just ( true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [ dismiss our lawlessness] and [ continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action]. If we say ( claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [ the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts].
1John Chapter 2 vs.3-4
And this is how we may discern [daily, by experience] that we are coming to know Him [ to perceive, recognize, understand, and become better acquainted with Him]: if we keep (bear in mind, observe, practice His teachings (precepts, commandments).
Whoever says, I know Him [ I perceive, recognize, understand, and am acquainted with Him] but fails to keep and obey His commandments (teachings) is a liar, and the Truth [ of the Gospel] is not in him.
- Tamara September 8, 2008 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Let's examine what the companion passage to Mark 10, says, since Matthew 19 is the major passage used to clobber gay people on the topic of marriage.
Matthew 19:3-12 deals with God’s view of heterosexual marriage and natural exceptions to heterosexual marriage as Jesus intended His followers to understand them. Jesus says some eunuchs are born that way, from their mother's womb. Jesus does not say born eunuchs enter the world with genital deformities.
Instead, He makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated (suffered genital deformity) by illness or by men. Jesus also makes a clear distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a choice to voluntarily abstain from marriage, for the kingdom of heaven.
In Matthew 19, Jesus cites Adam and Eve as the norm for marriage but carefully makes exception for people called eunuchs. According to Jesus, a eunuch is one who cannot receive His teaching about heterosexual marriage according to the Adam and Eve model.
Jesus informs us that of the three classes of eunuchs, the first class is born that way. In other words, born eunuchs are not physically castrated and born eunuchs are not required to abstain from marriage with an orientation compatible partner.
They are born eunuchs from their mother’s womb, unable to receive Jesus’ teaching about the Adam and Eve marriage model yet Jesus differentiates between them and castrated eunuchs and them and metaphysical eunuchs (eunuchs who make a personal decision not to marry).
History demonstrates that what we call gay men today, were called eunuchs by our spiritual ancestors. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus very clearly says born eunuchs, what today we call homosexuals, were born that way.
In case you doubt that born eunuchs were gay people, please note that Dr. Robert Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader of the twenty-first century, admits that:
"Probably 'born eunuchs' in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined..."
When even Dr. Robert Gagnon, our most vociferous opponent, admits this historical fact, our argument is largely won.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 9, 2008 11:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I notice that you like to draw from a lot of reference pertaining to psychologists, philosophers or, scholars and if taken from the Bible not in its true context.
1 Corinthians 1 vs. 20, 25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 3 vs 18-20
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.
Psalms 18 vs. 30
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
2 Corinthians Chapter 11 vs. 13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Goodbye on this topic.
- Tamara September 9, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In both of these passages, Paul uses the Greek term arsenokoite in reference to male homosexuality. The conventional understanding has been that Paul is specifically addressing homosexuality within this passage.
The pro-gay theological stance is that Paul is extremely concerned about prostitution within I Corinthians 6 and is mainly referring to male prostitutes. This word is only used within I Corinthians and I Timothy but nowhere else in the literature of the period.(1) John Boswell states that there were other words for “homosexual” in the Greek language so there was little need to use this term.(2) Also the word arsenokoite is a term that Paul has created from the words arsenos (man) and koite (couch or bed) and is specific to him. Therefore, Paul is condemning sexual immorality in general and not referring to committed homosexual relationships.
While it is true that the term arsenokoite appears to be of Paul’s invention, the context in which it appears is not nullified because of Paul’s originality. In fact, Paul coined 179 words throughout the New Testament. The words arsenos and koiten are taken directly from the Holiness Code of the Septuagint.(3) Because arsen is Greek for “man” and koites means “bed”, the connotation of sexual activity is predominant. The Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 places the words arsenos and koite in close proximity to each other and is suggested by Martii Nissinen that Paul is creating a neologism based upon the Septuagint.(4) These are the previously referred passages in which homosexual behavior is expressly forbidden. This further complicates the position that another meaning other than homosexuality is implied. In I Corinthians 5:1, Paul begins by addressing sexual matters with the general term porneia, ‘sexual immorality’. This is applied to a case of heterosexual immorality in verse 1 regarding a man’s stepmother. In the following verses there are initial references to porneia referencing heterosexual immorality followed by arsenokoitai which references the homosexual contrast.(5) In this context, one must consider the intent of arsenokoite in its perceived application to prostitution. Arsenos signifying ‘male’ is a clear emphasis on gender. Koite meaning ‘couch’ is listed only twice in the New Testament in a sexual connotation. There is nothing within these words that would implicate a trade or bartering.
__________________________________
1 Rev. Elder Don Eastman, "Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness," Metropolitan Community Church, 1990, http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality&Template =/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=629#Part1/ (accessed August 5, 2007).
2 Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2007), 209.
3 Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion (Eugene: Harvest House, 1996), 198.
4 Gwen B. Sayler, "Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality through the Lens of Theological Anthropology," A Journal of Theology 44, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 86.
5 Ed. L. Miller, "More Pauline references to homosexuality?," Evangelical Quarterly 77, no. 2 (2005): 130.
- J Buchanan September 10, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Exodus International has put out a call to its membership to come here and support Jeff Buchanan's position that homosexuality is inherently sinful and that the Bible condemns it.
Sorry, but I can't support those concepts. Much of what I would like to say has already been covered in the excellent posts above, but I'd just like to add that the handful of Biblical passages which have been historically misused to condemn gay relationships have nothing to do with same-gendered persons engaging in loving, faithful and committed monogamous relation to one another. Rather, they have to do with heterosexual people (men, in all but one instance) engaging in practices such as adulterous behavior with another man in their own wife's bed; sexual intercourse and orgies with temple prostitutes in service of false gods; buying and selling of sexual slaves; males raping other males by way of showing conquest and domination.
These are most certainly vile and hideous practices. But they have nothing to do with homosexual persons engaging in committed, loving relationships. In a paraphrase of an unknown author, "These are not homosexuals behaving badly; they are heterosexuals behaving attrociously."
God does not condemn loving, committed, supportive partnerships which display and represent God's love for humanity. God condemns those who abuse and exploit and do harm to their fellow human beings, regardless of gender.
- Babaroni September 10, 2008 4:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I had lesbian attractions for years before embarking on a series of lesbian relationships. I was out and I was proud. After coming to know Jesus, I read Romans and realized that I could not be a Christian and a lesbian. It wasn't God's intention for human sexuality and if I truly loved God, I would be obedient to His word. I didn't need a tortured interpretation of the Bible to convince me to follow my own proclivities. Instead, a common-sense, historically sound reading of the Bible convinced that God didn't need to change, I did. It was then that I began the journey of transformation and sanctification. Never have a I regretted and never have I looked back. I always enjoyed being a lesbian, but never did I have the joy and peace that I do now.
Praise the Lord!
- Christian Mom September 10, 2008 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm genuinely astonished that people seriously:
1. think it is rational that a book written by human beings could actually represent the views of God, and reasonable to use the Bible as a literal supernatural rendering of right and wrong. All religious texts are an expression of human values, specifically those of the authors.
It is a noble endeavor to engage questions of morality. I think it is hubris if people aren't deeply troubled about using a book written by human beings as the basis for claims about God.
2. I'm also astonished by people who use the Bible as an expression of God's will so easily ignore the things that don't trouble them, like Paul's instruction that women should cover their heads in church (and keep their mouths shut, by the way), while being so certain that homosexuality is a sin and going to great lengths to shame, stereotype (in many cases, commit false witness against - intentionally, or, through their lack of education about these issues, unintentionally), and discriminate against gays and lesbians.
I pray for the day when it is no longer acceptable for people to deny responsibility for their beliefs or actions by saying "well, that's what the Bible says, that's what I was taught is true." We can and must do better than this for the sake of humanity.
- Christine September 11, 2008 5:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Good points, Christine. I think people usually narrow their focus on only what affects them the most. It's a fact of human psychology that people most often condemn the things in themselves that they find most hard to accept. Most homophobic people are either fearful of some of the feelings of affection for the same gender, which upsets or confuses them, or they're closeted and can't face it. So they find whatever they can, wherever they can, to somehow counter the confusion. Literature like the Bible gives people ample material to quote in order to deal with their own problems. They are attacking what they dislike the most in themselves, and looking for the best ammunition they can find.
Of course, every time I say this to a homophobe, they get outraged and defensive...which is also explained in basic psychology texts. That's why you'll never win an argument with a religious fundamentalist about a subject like this...not until they accept themselves and their feelings. I have to admit that although I find their views offensive, I do feel sorry for the conflict that goes on inside them.
- Lagschnapps September 12, 2008 5:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Turning to the Bible as a guide to determine whether homosexual behavior is viewed as sin, there can be no denial that there are some ten or more biblical texts which clearly reference homosexual practices or behavior in one form or another in the combined Old and New testaments. Further, there also should be no denial that every one of these texts describes homosexuality in a negative light, as unacceptable to the people who believed they understood the mind and will of their God. People who lived across many centuries and cultures!
As Christians for whom "sola scriptura" is important, we believe we can go to the Bible for guidance and counsel. We have believed it is a reliable and inspired source for truth, assistance and direction. When we do, we find ourselves in the company of many who are engaged in an intense scrutiny of these ten scripture passages in the Old and New Testaments which focus on this issue. Both traditional biblical interpreters and so-called revisionist biblical interpreters have engaged in extensive analysis of these passages to find evidence, which supports their respective positions.
Unfortunately the scriptural debate about homosexuality often only focuses on these ten passages and their historical, cultural meanings. In doing so, it neglects the larger worldview which the Bible teaches about holiness, godliness, sin and self-discipline. It misses the forest for the trees. The debate has been often argued from the particular to the general. The Bible is much more than the sum of it’s parts. The Bible is the book of inspired writings which embodies a godly spirit or worldview because it embodies the Spirit of God.
In the Book of Leviticus (RSV) for instance, there are two passages which have received much attention: Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The other is Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
These prohibitions in Leviticus are representative passages concerning this issue. They are especially useful for grasping the biblical worldview of which these verses are specific examples. I contend that it is this biblical worldview from which we are able to best grasp an accurate perspective about same-sex attraction and sexual behavior. It is a biblical worldview which God asks His followers to adopt. It is His point-of-view which God asks us to adopt. He asks us to get the Spirit of his mind and heart.
Bible-believing Christians don’t live on the basis of one or two or twenty verses of scripture. We live within a worldview of principles, standards, morals, values and ideals which the Bible teaches from Genesis through Revelation. Taken as a whole, this worldview represents the mind and heart and will of a loving Father God.
This is obvious from the people who come for Sexual Orientation Resolution Therapy (SORT). No one has ever come into therapy saying, "Hey, you know what, I just read Leviticus 18:22 and I don’t want to be abominable anymore!" Everyone who has entered resolution therapy or come to our support group, and who has been successful at resolution does so because they understand the Bible generally and have grasped the heart of their Father God. They understand the Word cumulatively as a worldview in which same-sex sexual behavior is unacceptable to God. The biblically faithful SSA Christian client in therapy understands that in the biblical context, a God-view of homosexual behavior is sinful.
- Will828 September 11, 2008 11:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First off I want to thank you for being faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ in the very difficult walk many people, including myself, who struggle with homosexuality face. As much you want to argue around the teaching of Scripture it is very clear that homosexuality IS mentioned and IS called sin. The good news is that, like all sinners, in Jesus Christ we have the hope of salvation. In Jesus Christ a new word is spoken, a word of freedom, a word of healing, a word of restoration, a word that calls us back to move forward, to become who we already are in the dreams and love of God. It is not a freedom that permits sin but rather frees us from it to be the people of God, the people of the church, followers of Christ, Christians. Thank God I have found this freedom. Leaving the crippling false identity of the "homosexual" has been a breath of fresh air as deep as the breath God put in me when he nit me together in my mother's womb. Know my identity is shaped in and under the Word and Lordship of Christ instead of my self-claimed identity lording over my faith and life.
Peace be upon you brother,
Spencer
- Periannath September 14, 2008 4:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If you really want to know, you can ask God yourself, and he will answer because he loves you.
Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be answered. Knock and the door shall be opened to you.
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 6:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Making an argument based on the bible is is in no way persuasive.
- edwardv September 21, 2008 7:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm so sorry for all the people who give up who they are for a FEW versus in a 2,000 year old, often translated book. There are some basic tennents that are good in the Bible. I live by those every day. I refuse to believe that love is wrong. I wonder how many times love is mentioned in the Bible? In my opinion, the only thing Exodus does is push those seeking their "help" into celibacy. What a waste of a perfectly natural life.
- tjhawknest33 September 23, 2008 6:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
All the Scriptures below remind us that we have a sinful nature, and because of this sinful nature we have inclinations of different kinds. (This is why Dr. Dobson mentioned that in some cases people do not choose to feel same sex attraction) To have an inclination does not mean that we cannot use our God given free will/choice to choose what is right; our ability to reason is not in vain, it is because God, our Creator, did not want us to be like robots; He tells us through the Scriptures what is pure, noble and right, but it is up to us what we choose, or how we want to interpret His word to fit our sinful natures and try to silence our consciences. No matter how many want to justify sin, in the end, sin is sin, and each one will receive what is due according to his/her deeds.
*Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. Romans 8:5
*Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:8
*Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. Romans 8:12
*For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:13
*Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. EVEN THEIR WOMEN EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATIONS FOR UNNATURAL ONES. IN THE SAME WAY MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION. ROMANS 1:24-27
*“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
*But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Reina
- reinahoward September 25, 2008 12:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm really starting to think that "Christians" such as yourself take the words of Paul to mean more than the words of Christ.
If you're a Christian... show me where Jesus - you know... the person whom you're supposed to be following - says that being gay is a sin. Tell me how you think Jesus would have reacted to a gay person sharing Christ's message. Tell me if you think Jesus would have treated a gay man or woman any differently than a leper, or a whore, or anyone else.
- SocialistBetty January 11, 2009 3:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi SocialistBetty,
Thank you so much for your question. I do not think that Christ would have reacted in a negative way to a gay person sharing His message as long as this person does not act on his/her tendency—same sex attraction. All of us have tendencies and struggles; this is the reason why Christ died on the cross for us.
I believe that individuals are more than just their sexuality and no one should be defined and/or valued based only on a sexual tendency. What about their character, talents, interests, love for Christ and other people, etc., etc.
I want to share this article which explain what I would like to tell you.
Written by: Mike Ensley | March 6th, 2008
The answer that immediately comes to mind is, “Well, yeah!” We know God loves everybody, but then we’re confused when we see Bible verses that say homosexuality is a sin. What does that mean for gays?
Let’s ask ourselves: does God think the way we do? Not quite (Isaiah 55:9). So I wonder if God would even think of people as “gay” or “straight” in the first place?
Like the verse linked to above says, God’s ways are much higher than ours. You know, the Bible really never classifies people as “gay” or “homosexual” (even though some translations make it seem that way). The Scriptures only ever talk about homosexuality being a kind of behavior–not a kind of person.
So it’s more accurate to say that, rather than seeing people as “gay,” God just sees people–some of whom have same-sex attractions, and others who have different struggles. And He loves them all. The only question is whether we are willing to daily make an effort in faith to submit our ground-level ways to His heavenly ones .
No matter what your struggle looks like, though, it doesn’t have to dictate your identity, actions or destiny. A big part of starting this journey is learning to stop thinking the way the crowd thinks, to stop believing everything you’re told just because it’s popular opinion.
Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:2)
SocialistBetty, please let me know if you have any other questions and God bless you =0)
Reina
- reinahoward January 11, 2009 7:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am not gay. I have nothing against gays. It is their life, not mine.
I am not religious. Why must I face this barrage over this book which I feel has no mandate in MY life? This is a collections of writings from a time when very few people could write. I find it no more binding than a collection of National Enquirer's from the 1950's.
When it comes to civil rights, the Bible should be left at home. Government and religion should not mix. Ever.
I respect your rights to have your faith. Please respect my absence of faith.
Where gayness and sin are concerned.... leave them alone. Don't they have enough to deal with? Can you imagine how difficult it is to be different and on top of that to be told that you are a "sinner"? How cruel can you be to do this?
No, it is not a sin. Show me where it is a "sin" without using your book. How can love be wrong? Honestly, I just don't get it.
Michelle
- litebkt December 10, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Those who turn to Leviticus and other passages to confirm preconcieved beliefs about homosexuality are only cherry picking--these same books say many other normal things are sins, from the sorts of clothes one wears to what you eat. Do those who find homosexuality sinful find the other things in these passages sinful as well? Or are they cherry picking?
- Blue Linchpin December 16, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I have issues with people claiming either "yes" or "no." Let's say you believe "no." Does that mean you get to have sex with whomever you want? Most of my male gay friends couldn't lead a monogamous relationship if God himself came down, slapped them in the face with a turkey, and said "dude, seriously? Knock it off." Maybe that's just the crowd I run around with. But if you sleep with everything that casts a shadow, whether you're gay or straight, you're still a slut. And I'm pretty sure the bible outlines God's feelings towards sluts. Also, if you believe having sex before marriage constitutes as a sin and you're still living in one of those states that doesn't allow same sex marriage...you can see how this could be a problem...
If you say "yes" to the whole "homosexuality is a sin" that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. But I have never seen Christians fail so wholly on the concept "love the sinner hate the sin" more than on the subject of homosexuality.
- Livvy December 17, 2008 12:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In short, yes, it's just your friends. I know several monogamous homosexuals, and I am an extremely monogamous bisexual (supposedly they don't exist, yet here I am!).
While it may be true that as a population, homosexuals are more promiscuous (and I will not concede that point without current data), that was not the question. The question is: "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" If I answer no, does that automatically mean that doing meth is not a sin, because some gay people do meth? Of course not. It's a different question entirely.
For what it's worth, I don't believe any of these things are sin, because I'm an atheist. Some things are just wrong. Being who you are is not one of them, unless who you are is a serial killer, etc.
- lostlo January 30, 2009 4:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't really believe it's just my friends. I would say around 90% of the gay men I have known (and I've lived down the street from San Fransisco, so it's not just a few) have had pretty open relationships. I'm trying very hard not to stereotype here, but it's hard not to when, adversely, all my lesbian friends have been pretty freaking monogamous. You're lucky, in a way, to be an atheist. I've had some good friends who've been steadfastly religious try to deal with their sexuality and it can get quite ugly and distressing for them. It's hard to deal with parents or family who aren't accepting of your choices, but harder still when you yourself have issues with who you are.
- Livvy January 31, 2009 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Apologies, looking back now that I'm not at work and in a hurry, I was not very clear. My point was, even your friends who are not 100% promiscuous. "All gays are slutty" is the only condition that would make your argument logically correct.
Sorry, I'm a huge nerd about logic. Let me back it up a bit.
The question asked by this page is "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" Your answer (according to my own humble interpretation) breaks down to:
"I don't know. I can't say no, because gays are slutty and god is not a big fan of that. Also, gays can't marry and god doesn't like premarital sex either.
If you say yes, I understand, but I cannot say yes myself because I don't like to hate."
That's actually a great, well-reasoned, and honest opinion. I wish more religious folks had that view. My point was just that the argument "A is wrong, most B are A, therefore B is wrong too" is not logically correct. What about non-slutty gays? They do exist, in fact 100% of the gay people in my close social circle are entirely monogamous. That's because atheist ethics are how I roll, and many friends are like-minded or similar. The point is, even if promiscuity is correlated to homosexuality, it's not the same thing, and god's condemnation of one does not automatically extend to the other.
As for marriage, the legal governmental form of marriage and the religious ceremony are not the same thing, and their endless confusion is a big problem in our country right now. Gays can get married in a church. Surely it's religious marriage, not civil marriage, that god required? Even if you only count legal marriage, if you believe that premarital sex is a sin, again that is not the same thing as homosexuality. The vast majority of heterosexuals also have premarital sex. Using this logic, being an American is a sin.
Our disagreement is a matter of perspective, you're coming from a common-sense point, and I'm coming from a logical view (which is what opposing view is all about for me). To use an analogy, suppose that giving birth were a sin. Does that make being a woman a sin? Most women have children, after all.
As for your comment about reconciling religion with ones lifestyle (which extends to a lot more situations than just homosexuality), amen to that! Personally, I suspect the antagonistic nature of homosexuality vs. religion in the US is probably a contributing factor as to why homosexuality is so often correlated with promiscuity. Of course, there are a lot of other factors correlated to promiscuity which are not, as far as I know, labeled sin.
Sorry if I sound antagonistic at all, when it comes to gay rights I just see red sometimes. I do appreciate how non-judgmental you are :)
- lostlo January 31, 2009 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Honestly, the reason I am uncommitted on this argument is because it isn't up to us to decide who the sinners are. And I while I believe whole-heartedly in the existence of God I'm willing to bet he's just about the most chill guy ever. I mean seriously, Jesus comes down, tries to get everyone to chill out and everyone just goes freaking nuts! Plus, if a true Christian reads the bible, they'll notice that God says "thou shalt not judge, dude" just about a million times. So who are we to point fingers at homosexuals and say "sinner"?
And you don't sound antagonistic - I understand about the seeing red thing. I hate hearing people talk about prop 8 because most people on either side of the argument just don't know what they're talking about. People refuse to see past what the media portrays (or what they're parents have raised them to believe) and so we have endless discussions of rhetoric and it makes me SO ANGRY.
Anyway, I think you and I may have had vastly different experiences when it comes to homosexuality. I have to say, most of my close gay friends come from religious backgrounds and they usually don't differ from my straight friends. So things like the gay parades in San Fransisco, marti gras, and flamboyant drag queens seem to me cliche, and I'm automatically biased against them because I think they do a huge disservice to the face of the gay community.
- Livvy January 31, 2009 2:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm an atheist, so the discussion of whether homosexuality is a sin does not even have a point as far as I'm concerned. However, completely aside from opinion, the "logic" used in this argument is totally absurd.
According to the argument, god first created Adam. Then he went through all the animals on earth, and none of them were a good mate. So god created Eve, therefore homosexuality is wrong. QED.
There's only one problem with that. There were no other men on earth throughout all this. Therefore god never, ever said "oh, well, you don't fit with this other dude, either." There was only one man on the planet, gay was not even an option for god to dismiss.
If you want to believe in god, fine with me. If you want to use religion to hate others, that's not fine with me, but I respect your right to think whatever you please. But if you're going to have opinions and make arguments, please think about whether they make sense now that you're not 17.
Hopefully this does not sound rude, but it upsets me when people just parrot things they're taught without thinking critically, and religion is a big source of that. It hurts society, like "just following orders."
- lostlo January 30, 2009 4:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
how does romans say homosexuality is a sin.
(1) homosexuals do not have women..........not from their earliest sexual memories.
(2) one cannot abandon something one has never had.
(3) natural(dictionary)inclination of being according to personal essence
(4) shame based lust....anything shamebased is a about self defilement that causes self hatred and self loathing. anything motivated by lust is committed to satiating the lust. the individuals involved are mere instruments for satiating the lust. there is no commitment between individuals.
homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together, the same as with heterosexual bonding. it is about self affirmation.
to say that romans is about homosexuality, is like saying that orgies are about heterosexual bonding.
- FEETXXXL March 4, 2009 10:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Many Christians say homosexuality is a choice. Science, logic, common sense, real life accounts, and psychologists all prove this wrong. Any educated Christian or person knows that homosexuality is not a choice. You cannot choose your sexual attractions. They try to use the cop-out that, "its the behavior" but that behavior is caused by the initial sexual attraction, which you cannot change. If you feel you can change your sexual attraction, you might want to re-evaluate your sexuality, because you are not straight, but bi-sexual.
Now within the group of people that think being gay is a choice, they fall in 2 groups.
Group 1: The bigots, who try to find any excuse to condone their discrimination .
Group 2: People who actually are good people, but not informed or know enough about gay people, and thus still think its a choice.
I am speaking to group 2 here. Group 1 are bigots that will never change their mind, but that generation will die out like the racist generations. Group 2 read on.
-Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice
-Most gay people will tell you its not a choice
-Common sense will tell you its not a choice
While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276 /
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172 /
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
But we don't need scientific evidence for this.
(REVERSE THE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE FEMALE)
I shall ask you this. When you see a naked woman, it goes up right? They turn you on emotionally and sexually right? Now how about when you see a naked man? Does your pulse raise in the same way? Are you enjoying it? Do you go up? Do you feel sexual urges in the same way? Do men turn you on emotionally and sexually? Does male/male porn turn you on sexually? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you find men sexually attractive? Could you be happy sexually with a man for the rest of your life? If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual , and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society , knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can't. Simple logic there.
- ShadowMan March 23, 2009 3:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The homosexuality law is there to stop the behavior if you have the attraction like the murder law is there to stop the behavior of murdering if you have the urge to kill.
- Screen Name April 8, 2009 2:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I, for one, think it's terrible that you denied who you are. God made you the way you are; who are you to question that? I think you should have gone with your feelings.
- mbargues April 17, 2009 9:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Sin" is a religious term, specifically from the Bible and according to the Bible, homosexuality is a "sin".
Even though I am a Christian, and "disagree" with the homosexual life style, I recognize their right to make their own choices and respect their right to live their life the way they want to.
Religiously speaking, homosexuality is a "sin", but in my opinion it is not "wrong".
- gatorgirl7563 June 13, 2009 8:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
http://judiwheeldon.blogspot.com/2009/08/council-bluffs-public-school-teacher.html
- Judi Wheeldon August 28, 2009 5:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
That teacher made a true statement.... It is OK to be gay
- MrBook August 29, 2009 7:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I find that people who follow their own instinctual morals, free from religious influence, treat humans as humans, not as creatures to be judged.
- kylo1 September 2, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
so what about sodom and gomorrah? Did God burn down that homosexual city because he had a sudden urge to be an arsonist? Really, now. In the plainest terms, sin is defined by God, God burned down a city full of homosexuals (in other words, he doesn't like it), THEREFORE homosexuality is a sin. As defined by God. As defined by the Bible.
- zebrakin November 23, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Here's what Ezekiel has to say about the sins of Sodom.
Ezekiel 16: 49-50
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
In Mark 6:7-13, Jesus informs the apostles to go out and preach, but take nothing with them and to rely on the hospitality of towns. Any town that doesn't show them hospitality will be dealt with, such as Sodom and Gomorrah. No mention of sex.
So, no, God did not burn down a city of homosexuals, claiming that he didn't like it. He burned down a city full of people who were arrogant, rude to their neighbors, showed no concern for taking care of the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. This also fits in with the hospitality laws of the ancient world. That is, even if you're worst enemy shows up on your door begging for help, you help him. That's why there's a lot of ancient myths of gods disguising themselves as beggars. The story of Baucis and Philemon is a parallel story to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in that story, the gods destroy the area because the people would not go out of their way to help anyone.
- Shemhazai November 28, 2008 9:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
You can't define anything by saying, "It's whatever God/Zeus/Odin/Charlie says it is." Well, not if you expect to be taken seriously, anyway.
When is an act a "sin", and why? Does someone have to be harmed? Is it enough that it offends someone?
Can you do better than this? “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).” - Robert A. Heinlein
- GalapagosPete December 6, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Well said. Too often Christians make homosexual behavior the unforgivable sin. It is not.
However, that being said, it is still a sin. The line between law and grace is a tough one to walk, but we must do that nonetheless. There simply are no Scriptural references to homosexuality in a positive light. And the Church has always taught (for nearly 2000 years now) that it is a sin. It is only in our highly sexualized and self-indulgent culture that some people have sought to question that view.
Thank you for posting an honest, grace-filled article. And for sharing a touch of your personal experience.
- Allen September 10, 2008 2:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I was very active in the gay comminity for 14 years. There was 4 years I didn't care who I took home from the gay bars.I marched in the gay pride parade, I attended Metropolitian Community Church In time their sunday school department asked me to teach some of their kids. During thids time I met a woman who was willing to help me in the gay sunday school class. Our relationship lasted nine years. We even had the gay marriage. I thought I had the best of everything I could worship God in a gay church, teach kids about Jesus, and love a woman. While I taught SUnday School at the gay church, I asked God to remove my alcohol problem that I had. He took the desire to drink away from me. Later my lover and I moved from Ca. to Ill. We told the church we attended we were just sisters. After attending a Louis Palau Cursade in the early '90's, my partner told me she thought our relationship was wrong in God' eyes. I was really taken by surprise,and didn't know what to do. She made plans to move out. I had a choice, but going back to the bars would have been like dying. In my belief that God is bigger than me I began reading the Bible, and asking Him for help. I met Jesus at the well, in John 4-The Samaritian Woman. I continued to read and seek God's will, I came to the conclusion that homosexuality was a sin in God's eyes, and I asked him to remove it from me, and I repented of my sinful ways. There was peace and healing when I let God be in control. All of us have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God, only when we repent of the sin and ask God for forgiveness can we have peace. In
1 Corinthians 6 there are a list of things that God calls sin. There is also hope, because that is what some of us were.
- flo September 10, 2008 7:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"Is homosexuality a sin?"
That is such a tricky question and it's hard to explain. I'll share my story:
I am gay. I always wanted to find a boyfriend.
That was my dream since the time I could first imagine it as a young boy of 13. As I grew older and became active in the gay community, I found that dream quickly shattered.
My first boyfriend took my virginity and then promptly left me. My second boyfriend was controlling and always full of anger. He was verbally abusive to me aslo. My third boyfriend was a habitual cheater who would have secret sexual escapades behind my back and then lie about them.
One night at a club, a man was flirting with me. Later, I found out he had a boyfriend. He was still interested in me, so I found his boyfriend and asked him some questions.
I asked his boyfriend how long they were together? He answered "almost 20 years". I said, "wow! that's amazing! what's the secret?"
He looked at me, showed a smile and said in a matter-of-fact tone "those that PLAY TOGETHER, stay together".
I was taken back by that remark. At first, I thought it was just this couple, but as I got to know more gay couples, I'd ask the same question and almost always get the same answers.
I gave up hope in a relationship and plummeted into a life of promiscuity. It was an endless cycle of hurt, shame and brokenness.
One night, I grew so sad and full of despair that I prayed and asked God to show me his love and he did.
Today, I live my life as a 28 year old gay celibate male. I have not tried to become heterosexual. Heterosexuality is not my goal. My goal is happiness -- something I never found in the gay community. My celibacy and relationship with God has kept me free of heartache, unnecessary drama, diseases and hurt.
I find my celibate life and my relationship with God to be very happy and fulfilling. I love God and I can feel his love for me.
My choice was a personal one and I readily acknowledge that.
Merely having homosexual or "gay" feelings is not the issue, it's what you choose to do with them. Alcohol is not an issue if you drink it in moderation.
I cannot condemn anyone for living an actively gay lifestyle. That is between the individual and God.
All I can do is share my experience and the peace, love and happiness that I have found when I left the gay community and grew more spiritual.
- cda92680 September 10, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
I grew up a Catholic so I had some convictions about homosexuality. Yet I still practiced it. I was later convicted of it in my early twenties and became a born-again spirit-filled Christian. However, I started to recognize that I wasn't completely over my affections toward men, and though I never engaged in another homosexual relationship or sex since I became born again, I have struggled with it.
Having confessed that, I also want to point this out too; I never gave in to the belief that it's okay. I will always continue to fight and resist and struggle to gain the complete victory over those illegitimate feelings.
I recognize that Jesus Christ didn't suffer and die so that I can live a life as a slave. He promises that who the Son sets free is free indeed. So there must be a problem on my side and with the way I am doing things, and there has been. I've learned that God's weapons are mightly and capable of pulling down strongholds.
Don't compromise on this. That's the first rule. God is committed to your complete deliverence in this life. Believe in Him, that's the second rule.
Thirdly, consider yourself dead to your old nature and your carnal nature. Don't obey the lust of your flesh, rather subject yourself to the Spirit of God and live for God.
I leave you with this amazing tool and weapon from Romans 6:6
"knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;" (Rom 6:6)
Don't stop here though, go ahead and read all of Romans 6 and consider your beliefs and way of living out your new gift of salvation in Christ Jesus.
-God Bless
- michaelz September 17, 2008 6:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
"Thirdly, consider yourself dead to your old nature and your carnal nature. Don't obey the lust of your flesh, rather subject yourself to the Spirit of God and live for God."
Torturing yourself is not healthy. What your are saying is that you must torture yourself to obey god's supposed "word." What kind of god would want a person to do that? The only logical conclusion I can think of is a cruel one.
It's like you've made it some sort of "righteous test" in your mind; something you think you need to overcome - but what you can't see is that a god that would do that to a person isn't worth worshiping in the first place.
- Apocalypse
February 16, 2009 3:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My friend. You will either suffer for sinning or for doing what's right.
I'd rather suffer for choosing the right path.
God desires to rescue us from suffering as sinners, but that means we'll need to suffer ridicule as His children.
Humans are in a battle for their souls. You can either surrender to the enemy and sit in a cell as satan's prisoner or you can suffer with Jesus Christ as a soilder and take some hits.
"Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. 2:3
Secondly, you're making an assumption from a perspective of someone who's obviously never experienced a true encounter with the very real God who sets people free from lust and dysfunctions.
God came in the form of man in the person of Jesus Christ and suffered with us against sin and won our freedom. He paid for our debt. That's worth suffering for if it means gaining life eternal.
Hbr 2:10 ESV - For it was fitting that he (God), for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder (Jesus) of their salvation perfect through suffering.
- michaelz February 17, 2009 8:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"My friend. You will either suffer for sinning or for doing what's right."
How do you know? Do you think you're special enough to know what your god wants? That sounds pretty arrogant to me.
I'd rather suffer for choosing the right path."
Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy; it's not just, "If my christian god isn't real, then I have nothing to worry about anyway since I'm taking the safe route and believing." In reality, any one of the thousands of gods in history are also a possibility. I don't know about you, but if I believed and then only realized many, many years later that I was wrong, I would be devastated. It would've been a complete waste of time.\
"God desires to rescue us from suffering as sinners, but that means we'll need to suffer ridicule as His children."
It's kind-of backwards for god to make a system that is guaranteed to send billions of people to hell, then pretend he cares. If god desired to rescue people, he would rescue everyone. It wouldn't matter if they believed or not. He would also have the omniscience to see the choices people will already make. Would make the entire thing quite redundant - and if he wouldn't have the omniscience nor the power to intervene, why call him god, then?
"Humans are in a battle for their souls."
I'd like to see some hard evidence for the existence of souls in the first place.
"You can either surrender to the enemy and sit in a cell as satan's prisoner or you can suffer with Jesus Christ as a soilder and take some hits."
God is ultimately responsible for satan's actions, if this is the case. Doesn't sound like a good god to me. Just sounds like a cruel, slave-driving tyrant that likes to play useless games.
"Secondly, you're making an assumption from a perspective of someone who's obviously never experienced a true encounter with the very real God ..."
What is a, "true encounter with the very real God?" If your christian god really exists, he would make it obvious to everyone - even with free will intact.
"... who sets people free from lust and dysfunctions."
Lust is natural; it's part of nature and yes, human nature, as well. Why would your christian god (who is perfect) make an imperfect creation? What would be the motivations for wanting all people to (ultimately) torture themselves? Why would he focus on one tiny rock in the entire universe? Doesn't make sense.
"God came in the form of man in the person of Jesus Christ and suffered with us against sin and won our freedom. He paid for our debt."
Firstly: Jesus was only written about in gospels and has no other references to him in history (during or shortly after his time) whatsoever. Second: in the bible, the romans treated Jesus special as opposed to traditional civil executions during the time. The romans who (supposedly) crucified him did not believe he was the son of god or anything special, but they somehow gave him special treatment anyway? Again, makes no sense. Even more ridiculous is the fact that they made a separate grave for him when tradition was to throw them in a mass grave. Thirdly: the supposed testimonials to seeing Jesus after death are inconsistent even when the multiple parties witnessing it were present.
"That's worth suffering for if it means gaining life eternal."
How do you know you'll gain eternal life? How do you know you're not just wasting your time? How do you know you're even worshiping the right god? There's too many questions that arise even from the assumption that a theistic god really does exist.
It's funny to me that if for any reason other than religion you acted the way you did, you'd be considered to be crazy. I think it's about time psychiatrists start evaluating religion, as well.
- Apocalypse February 17, 2009 3:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"It's funny to me that if for any reason other than religion you acted the way you did, you'd be considered to be crazy." Uh...you do realize that atheism is a RELIGIOUS view, right? It's funny to me that if for any reason other than your cliche, bombastically hateful views of religious people you acted the way you did you'd be considered an asshole. Oh wait...
This is what I gather from your conversation: michaelz wrote about a difficult personal decision he's made, and you decided to go ahead and tear it all to pieces on a public forum because you can. Thanks for trying to make atheists look bad, buddy. I'm sure they appreciate it more than you know.
- Livvy April 24, 2009 11:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I found your response to be humble and genuine. You did not come off arrogant or bigotted. YOu have a right to express your opinion as well as anyone else. Awesome!
- angelmama August 8, 2009 11:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
are you a Christ follower?
- Periannath October 13, 2008 4:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The writer for Exodus wrote, "the biblical definition of “sin” means “to miss the mark” or “to wander from the law of God." I think that Rick Brick Brentlinger would adhere wholeheartedly with that definition. However, we disagree with Exodus as to what God's law is.
There is a difference between God's Law in the Old Testament and God's law in the New Testament isn't there? The New Covenant, that the prophet Jeremiah predicted (Jeremiah 31v31-34), is now in force, and the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians. That's why Christians eat pork.
But what law does apply. Is it not what the apostle James called "The Royal law," and "The Law of Liberty" (James 1v25, 2v8), "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Old Mosiac Laws, which were necessary for Israel at the time of Moses, were made redundant after Pentecost. The believer of the gospel is personally redeemed to God, regenerated, and filled with his Spirit, and laws that have nothing to do with love, nothing to do with the Royal law, are no longer relevant.
When other Christians lambast me for my long-term committed and faithful relationship with my Partner, I ask them, "How am I breaking the Royal Law?"
- GayChristian September 22, 2008 10:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dear friend, peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I write to you to convince you of the soundness of the Word of God from its begining to its end beacause it is the word of life and sound truth from God for all men. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17 NIV). Remember that when this was written to Timothy the only cannonized Scripture available was the Hebrew Tanak and Torah, or Law. The Apostle Paul clearly considered it inspiried and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteiousness... and so on. Furthermore, Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the law but to fufill it.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20, NIV). Jesus didn't do away with the law but rather fufilled it. There could be a whole sermon on this but it speaks for itself that the law is not done away with. As believers in Christ you are right in saying that we are no longer judged by the law but that is not because it is not relavent or useful, but like the Apostle Paul said it is useful and to the Romans wrote:
"So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Romans 6:12-13, NIV).
The law still reveals what is sinful and as a Christ follower it is not ok to keep on sinning. THe reality that we live by the Royal law, or the Law of the Spirit of life is that we are free from our sinful nature to yield and follow the Spirit of God who leads us into the way of righteousness, which the Law (Mosaic) defines. We are not saved by or through the law but by grace through faith but faith is demonstrated in obeidienace and obeidience to God is done through obeying his law. Jesus said "If you love me you will obey my commands." And remember, Jesus didn't nulify or do away with any of God's law (as given through Moses) but rather fufilled it. The commands in both the Old and New testaments (covenenents) against the practice of homosexuality are still binding for Christ followers as they were in the beginging of the church. The good news is that Jesus frees us from our sinful nature and gives us the power through the Spirit of God to put to death the misdeeds of the body and live by the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature reep death but those who live according to the Spirit, by his power (that is God does it) reep eternal life.
Peace to you, and may the peace of Christ come into every area of the life and convict you of your need for God's help in restoring your whole person and sexuality. God loves you!
- Periannath October 13, 2008 4:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi Periannath,
Thanks for your reply and the grace with which it was given. But, Periannath, there is an obvious question that lots of people will be asking you right now - "Do you eat pork?"
If the answer is positive, should you not then admit that something certainly has changed between the Old and New Testaments? Also, is it is vital for you as a teacher to find out what that thing is?
I, like you, believe in the inspiration of Holy Scripture. But I also see something dramtic happening at Pentecost, when God's people were placed under a new covenant, and released from the "tutors and govenors" of the Mosaic Law (Galations 4v1-5).
In Acts 15, the apostles acted decisively against a "sect of the Pharisees who had believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them (Christians), and to command them to keep the Law of Moses." (V5) I have the whole weight of New Testament scripture behind me when I say that Christians no longer need to keep the Mosaic Law.
So how then does any Christian explain Jesus' words in Matthew 5v17-20. For me, the answer lies in verse 19, and the phrase, "the least of these commandments," because Jesus wasn't actually referring directly to the Law of Moses with this phrase. Instead, he was referring to the commandments that he was about to utter- v22, v28, v34, v40, v44; Chapter 6v3, v7, v14, 20, 25; Chapter 7v1. F
inally, Jesus sums up the morality that underpins the Mosaic Law, by saying-
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Chapter 7v12)
Jesus didn't come to "destroy" the Mosaic Law- that is certain. He came to ensure that the morality that underpins that Law is fulfilled in the believers life. And what is that morality? I have just quoted what Jesus taught about that morality. It correlated exactly with the "Royal Law" - "Love you neighbour as yourself."
How do you think that I break this Royal Law?
Lots of love,
gaychristian
- GayChristian October 13, 2008 10:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Being gay is on the same level as eating a shrimp cocktail.
Why aren't there massive anti-shrimp groups, with schools training people, curing them of their unnatural desire for crab cakes?
- quantummechanik April 1, 2009 6:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
obedience is based upon separation. The ruler and the ruled. There can be no communion with, and therefore no true understanding of ' god ' under this archaic principle.
Obedience is fear based. 'disobedience' is love based. Not KNOWING what you are obeying/disobeying is stupidity ;-)=¦
- deadpoet June 16, 2009 11:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I liked your response.
- angelmama August 8, 2009 11:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
That was a marvelous testimony. God bless you.
- angelmama August 8, 2009 11:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Let's observe the truth.
Mr. Rick Brentlinger wrote in response to point a):
"a) God’s exclusive design of male and female relationships as stated in Genesis
God never says or implies in the Genesis historical account, that his anatomical design of males and females requires ONLY male-female partnerships or that male-male and female-female partnerships draw His wrath"
->My objection:
Perhaps you missed the fact that Leviticus 20:13
(Lev 20:13) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
That word translated "lies with" is "shakab" in the original and all the word scholars interpret it as "lying down with in affection and sexually" See Strong's Hebrew and Greek concordance (H7901) and New American Exhaustive Concordance, also Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions.
Here another point. The Old Testament is filled with laws governing the sexual relationships between men and women, give me one, just one, instance of God's laws favoring healthy sexual relationships between two men or two women. NONE!!!!! You will never find ONE! Why? Because God doesn't condone any of it. Lev. 20:13.
Any other interpretation of God's word to the contrary of Homosexuality as sin is a direct assult on God's moral integrety.
Finally, in conclusion, The laws of God are a teacher to expose sin as being truly sinful. Some sins are greater than others and so incurred an immediate death sentence like rape, beastiality, homosexuality, incest, etc.
However, there are others that, yet still sinful, don't incur an immediate death sentence like this one;
(Deu 22:5) "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
This is were I disagree with J. Buchanan and others who say that no sin is worst than another. That's poor theology. What's true is that all but one sin is forgivable at the cross. Only blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.
Jesus Christ paid for that punishment, but He didn't nullify it's weight of sinfulness. We escape God's wrath by first repenting, and secondly, accepting His atonement, and lastly, living rightly in God's eye's alone, henceforth.
Read your bible and stop listening to deceitful men. Jesus promises that all those who sincerely seek the real truth, and who do so with God alone as their source of truth, shall find it. Men(including me) are short sighted and don't hold all truth, we need to seek it from God alone and He will only do it through Jesus Christ (The Word made flesh).
Seek verses like, John 8:34, Matt. 5:17-20, Gal. 3:22-24, John 8:34, Rom. 6:6, Luke 9:56
- michaelz September 15, 2008 11:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
To get at the original intent of why the Bible appears to condemn homosexuality, we must take a dive into the Middle Ages.
According to William N. Eskridge, Jr. (writing under the Virginia Law Review), "The early church fathers – most notably Clement, Jerome, Origen, and Augustine – developed a philosophy of sexual abstinency that problematized any sexual activity done for pleasure itself. But other, non-Christian traditions in Roman society – Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Manicheanism – similarly urged that 'intercourse was supposed to take place only so as to produce children. The couple must not make love for the sake of pleasure alone.'"
The last sentence is crucial, here. The couple must not make love for the sake of pleasure alone. Why? Because it is selfish and serves no productive purpose for society. The ideas behind homosexual acts being a sin are the same as heterosexual acts with contraceptives being a sin, or the same as masturbation being a sin. Pure, selfish pleasure is bad because it is unproductive and turns the focus from helping society to helping one's self.
When the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns selfishness. Homosexual love isn't selfish. Homosexual love is no different from heterosexual love. Homosexual love represents devotion, affection, trust, respect, all of the same ideals that heterosexual love represents. True homosexual love is selfless.
Don't hate homosexuality. Hate selfish acts.
- QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 5:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Does his command to one person apply to all people? If so, should I be worried about my father trying to sacrifice me?
- quantummechanik April 1, 2009 11:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have heard the argument before that type of homosex referred to in Paul's Letters refer not to modern day stable and loving gay relationships but to cultic temple worship and prostitution.
Yet, according to the writing of Plato, which comes from the same general time period, stable, loving and long term gay relationships existed at the time. According to your point of view, did Paul simply not address those types of gay relationships? Was he ignorant of them or do you think he condoned them through his silence? Do you acknowledge the possibility that, given the fact that stable and loving gay relationships existed and were known about at the time, Paul was referring to all sorts of gay relationships -whether they be temple sex, long term love or any kind in between?
- Pete September 10, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You make an error when you state that sins is not abiding by the law... it clearly states that a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. God clearly states that with simple language, yet you ignored that part of the law. If God says something, it is what He says it is because He says it is. We need go no further on the topic.
- sfgiantsfanmike September 11, 2008 7:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Romans 1:24 - Therefore God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the TRUTH of God for a LIE and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This is an unnatural lifesytle.. and it states that they exchanged the truth for a lie. How much more specific could the scriptures be?
- crash September 15, 2008 7:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Crash wrote:
"This is an unnatural lifesytle.. and it states that they exchanged the truth for a lie. How much more specific could the scriptures be?"
The problem with your viewpoint is that you begin with two false presuppositions.
a. That Paul is talking about committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships in Romans 1:26-27
b. That Paul agrees with your twenty first century viewpoint on homosexuality.
Paul is not dealing with homosexuality as such in Romans 1. That is not at all his point. His argument is about IDOLATRY and he mentions shrine prostitution as evidence of idolatry.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 16, 2008 9:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Let me show you what Romans 1 says:
So homosexuality is viewed as "alright" in this passage? That definitely is not the case. Here it says: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
So it states that "homosexuality" is not "NATURAL" and that the men also received the "Due Penalty" for their error (men and women committing "unatural" relations with same gender).
It then goes onto say: " 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
Here it tells us that those who practiced "unnatural relations" with same gender, were filled with unrighteousness, evil, malice, etc. It says they also not only commit all these acts, but give approval to others to do the same. It says the "God's decree" to those who practice such things is to "die."
So again, explain to me.... why is homosexuality not a sin? Do you know what the term sin means. Sin is essentially "rebellion against God." If God says that practicing same gender sex is against his decree, which means those who practice are "rebelling against God's decree," therefore that means they are "sinning."
It is simple logic.
- quiet4no1 October 20, 2008 12:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Dear quiet4no1:
Reading into the text what Paul did not say (a universal prohibition of homosexuality) is called eisogesis - wrongly interpreting the text. That kind of faulty interpretation is unworthy of Christians who love the word of God.
This Link will assist our mutual understanding of Romans 1.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Against-Nature.html
Paul's words to the Christian community in ancient Rome come from his knowledge of the first century world in which he lived. His carefully tailored argument against idolatry (not lesbianism and not homosexuality) in Romans 1 is set in the specific context of Gentile and Jewish history, complete with first century illustrations familiar to his first century readers.
Paul’s readers were intimately acquainted, as we are not, with Greek, Jewish and Roman culture and the shrine prostitution which permeated those ancient cultures.
Is it honest to deny the influence of fertility goddess cults which flourished in first century Rome?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
Paul Talks About Gentile Idolatry In Romans 1, Not Homosexuals And Not Lesbians.
"For this cause [idolatry] God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
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." - Romans 1:26-27
Idolatry (not lesbianism and not homosexuality) is the hook that catches Gentiles and Jews and allows Paul to declare everyone guilty before a holy God, Romans 3:23.
Idolatry, not homosexuality and not lesbianism, is the specific context of Paul's argument in Romans 1.
Shrine prostitution is certainly how Paul's first century readers understood his words in Romans 1 and that is how we ought to understand Romans.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
- Rick Brentlinger October 20, 2008 9:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Above you have stated that because of idolatry, God gave them unto their vile affections. What were the vile affections? It explains that next: women and men exchanging in unnatural relations with the same gender.
The word "vile" is defined as:
1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.
a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b. Of mean or low condition.
4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.
Obviously, something that is "vile" is not GOOD.
In this passage, God gives them over to their own selfish and bad desires (such as homosexuality) because they have committed idolatry.
Because God gave them over to homosexuality because of idolatry does not make it "right." They were choosing to worship themselves and creatures instead of God, so he gave them over to their other bad desires.
The context is about what God did because of men and women idolizing things other than him. He gave them over to their "foolish," "unnatural," and "vile" desires. Homosexuality was one of those desires.
- quiet4no1 October 20, 2008 10:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It does refer to many parts of Idolatry in Romans 1, but even so it describes same gender sex and attractions as "vile affections." That means God did not approve if it was called "vile." Another point, "lusting" is a sin. If homosexuals are lusting towards another, they are sinning as well.
The point I am trying to make, is that "homosexuality" is never described as "good" in the bible, meaning we should consider not being involved in it. It is considered as vile, impurity (v. 24), to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves (v. 25). He gave them up because they we committing idolatry to many things, including other men and women.
Their is due penalty for their error in practicing their lusts for the same gender (v. 26-27).
That is why homosexuality is a sin. It involves practicing the "opposite" and "unnatural" ways that are against the way God created us to function.
- quiet4no1 October 20, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
quiet4no1 wrote:
[Romans 1] "describes same gender sex and attractions as 'vile affections.'"
In the Bible, there are a number of passages about heterosexual rape - Genesis 34 and Judges 19 and 2 Samuel 13. No thoughtful person would conclude that heterosexuality is wrong based on Bible passages about rape.
Just so, no thoughtful person would conclude that committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships are wrong based on a Bible passage about idolatry and shrine prostitution (Romans 1). When pagans engage in same sex activity to worship the fertility goddess, that cultic activity never provides an honest basis to condemn committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
In reality, your conclusion is at odds with the cultural, doctrinal, historical and scriptural context. The context is shrine prostitution - pagan sexual worship of the fertility goddess - not lesbianism and not homosexuality in the sense of loving, committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
One need not be gay or lesbian to understand that Cybele was THE leading fertility goddess in first century Rome.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_cybele.html
The context of Romans 1 is not now and never has been lesbianism or homosexuality.
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and the sexual practices which spring from idolatry.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
- Rick Brentlinger October 20, 2008 10:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Your idea only states you do not believe homosexuality is wrong. You hold the ground that you and only people who believe like you are "thoughtful." I guess it is fair to conclude you believe heterosexual rape is "okay" ans not a sin as well.
You obviously haven't studied the subject of sin period. I have a good link to my page that I wrote, regarding to what sin is, check it out here:
http://innovationapologetics.blogspot.com/2008/09/sin-what-is-it.html
Yes, Romans 1 is talking about idolatry. Because people idolized many things and not God, he gave them over to their "FOOLISH" desires: same gender attractions. He also described the same gender relationships as "vile" and "unnatural." If something is unnatural, it means God did not create it for thaat purpose in nature. So homosexual practices are not something God intended to happen.
Something that is considered bad and unnatural by God can not be good. He gave those people who were idolators over to their sinful desires, such as homosexual practices.
Yes there was worshipping of sex goddesses. Homosexuality does stem from idolatry, because men and women were idolizing not only sex godesses, but others of the same sex. Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Also, a homosexual "partnership" would be very sinful regardless, because sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and marriage was to be between a man and woman, not two males or two females.
I am not judgemental towards homosexuality, as it is just one of many sins, although it can be more emotional and harder to overcome. There are more passages on homosexuality is wrong throughout scripture:
1) Lev. 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
2) Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
3)1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Now hmmm... it seems to me that homosexualityis clearly stated as "wrong" and against the will of God. Anything contrary to the will of God is "Sin."
Your turn
- quiet4no1 October 20, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
quiet4no1-
Have you taken the time to read the rest of this discussion? Your last post reads like you have no idea of the preceding discussion.
Most of the material I previously cited can be found on this page, with the many Links provided there.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/My-Coming-Out.html
Suffice it to say that in previous posts, I have more than adequately covered each of the scriptures you quoted.
For you too quote them again, as if they can only be negative statements about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships is less than thoughtful.
None of the verses you cited even mention homosexuality in Hebrew and Greek. You are reading your twenty first century notions into texts that are 2000 - 3400 years old.
In some English versions, (I Corinthians 6:9 for example), translators have inserted a false translation, using the word, homosexual, when that word was never in the original.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html
I encourage you to do additional prayerful study.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jesus-On-Hell.html
- Rick Brentlinger October 20, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Upon reflection, it might be helpful if I briefly address the verses you quoted.
Lev 18:22 and 20:13 - These verses were NEVER about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Abomination.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 - These verses were never about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
Malakoi
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Malakoi.html
Arsenokoitai
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html
Hope this is helpful in your continued study of these interesting texts.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
- Rick Brentlinger October 20, 2008 5:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
They are never about "committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships." That is what you believe correct.
So I guess I would have to prove that sex before marriage is a sin first (because it was talking about men and women lying with the same gender). Then I would have to go into detail about how God created man and woman to procreate, not man and man or woman and woman. Finally I would have to show you that a "Godly" relationship includes a male and female (not 2 of same gender).
This is all evdent from scripture, yet you ignore those points.
You told me that Lev. 18:22 is not about those committed relationships between male and male...correct? Yet this is what it states: "Lev. 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
It states that ANYONE that lies with a male as one lies with a female is an abomination. Lets define abomination: loathsome, hateful, wicked, or vile, forbidden, and unclean.
It is telling everyone that no one should lie with the same gender, because it is unclean, forbidden, vile, wicked, etc.
So you can't take out those who participate in this act because they are more "committed" than others. Christians practicing sex before marriage can not say, "We are committed, so it must not be sinning." It is sin no matter how committed we are. Same goes for God's view on homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - the word you gave me, Arsenokoitai, translates in the Greek as a "sodomite: one who practices sodomy."
"Sodomy is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality. When used in a religious context, it has a negative connotation (wikipedia)."
In many translations, the word is translated as "effeminate" which according to Merriam-Webster, its defined as: "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner."
That would mean that any man who "has feminine qualities untypical of a man, and that does not act in a manly manner nor look like one in appearance, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The reason it is translated as "homosexual" is because the word "effeminate" describes a homosexual man. It also says those who practice this lifestyle of sodomy, which is exactly what homosexuals do, correct?
**You need to either rebuttal me with your own words and beliefs, not 20 web pages that I am not going to read. Why be debating if you are just going to tell us to read? If you can't make your point by using scripture and logic, then you shouldn't be considered an expert on the topic.
- quiet4no1 October 20, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I don't believe the Bible ever relates to "Adam and Steve" It does however relate to "Adam and Eve." Because someone claims to be a minister it does not qualify that individual to give his personal definition of what "sin" is. It's a personal belief. During my lifetime I heard so many different explainations and definitions on this one word until I finally took my mother's advice and found my own answers in the way I believe.
- kim42 October 2, 2008 3:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The question at the beginning is flawed. Homosexuality is not a sin. Homosexual acts are. The book of Leviticus certainly outlines God's teaching on this.
Is homosexuality disordered? Yes. Does that make those who suffer from same-sex attractions sinful or less human -- NO. There are many great organizations, such as Courage, which help men and women to live chaste lives in spite of their same-sex attractions. There are psychologists who are successful with therapy for this disorder. Gay and Lesbian people often don't like hearing this, but same-sex attraction can be, and often is overcome.
- Fr Fenton October 8, 2008 7:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Considering God indicated, that He so hates and despisees the practice of lying with same sex and even animals that he made a point of stating so. How do you think those who ptactices such will be received at and dealt with at the judgement?
- dadunique October 12, 2008 5:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
If you believe in God, and what the Bible says, then you have to recognize that God clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. He says in Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." And in Leviticus 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act[.]" And the Apostle Paul wrote in Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Though Jesus does not directly address the issue of homosexuality in the New Testament, He does speak about sexual immorality in Mark chapter 7 when He says, "What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder , adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you."
it is clearly spelled out that in the eyes of God, it is a sin. It's in both the New and Old Testaments. I don't see how you can be a Baptist minister and deny this?
- LagerHead June 23, 2009 2:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"The church has been clear for thousands of years that homosexuality is a sin." This may be the case, but the "clarification" has been gleaned from a few snippets throughout the bible and strung together to make a mountain out of what may never have even been a molehill. My fervent wish is that the churches of today give as little time to the whole morality - or lack thereof - of homosexuality as the Bible itself does. They happily do this for many other rules and sins in the bible that are quietly sidelined as no longer relevant to today - for example, women as chattels of men, the nationality of slaves, the correct ways of killing various animals, etc. Yet they fixate on gays and lesbians - who really just wish to be left alone.
I am a gay man in Sydney, Australia, in a committed homosexual relationship that brings me the most amazing love, joy and fulfillment. I have the blessing of my whole family - because they see how happy I am with my partner, who is a beautiful, loving and faithful man. I have never used drugs and my many days of charity work extend to all parts of my community, not just HIV/AIDS. I try to give to society as much as I've received from it. I have many friends of all kinds and ages - including my wonderful parents - and my life is rich and free.
I refuse to believe that any god would not wish this for all people. Everyone, regardless of their sexuality, should be able to live like this. The bible, the koran, or any other religious tome that is no more than the word of men, should not be used to clobber the rights of those who find the interference of religious obsessives totally inexplicable.
- cyberdog
September 21, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Adultery is sex outside of marriage and a homosexual relationship active in sex is outside of marriage and therefore adultery.
The overriding intent of scripture regarding relationship structure is that marriage is between opposite genders. Our manmade laws that define marriage otherwise cannot stack up to scripture . . . that is if we accept that scripture is God inspired.
Sex between two people of the same gender is no worse in God's eyes than two people of opposite gender having sex outside the covenant relationship of holy matrimony. That basically makes us all guilty of sinning. I thank God for His grace and patient love for all those who seek it.
- reyesmaximus October 12, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
then Christians believe it is sin unless it is inconvenient for them to do so. Why focus on homosexuality as a sin when there are scores of laws laid down in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Bible that hardly anyone pays attention to anymore? You're right to make this distinction between cultic and committed relationships, but I think there's a bigger point about defining sin. Why would an openly homosexual person be denied the Eucharist whereas there would be no problem with, for example, someone wearing two different kinds of fabric at once? It's a silly and arbitrary distinction as far as the Bible is concerned.
- thoughtcounts Z September 5, 2008 9:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I feel terrible that people who have same sex attractions feel condemned by the church. All of us are sinners - period. All of us are made worthy by God - period.
The notion of "sin" has taken on strange nuances that have become bigger than what I believe God intended. While sin does separate us from God, >Christ< bridged the gap, not our good behavior. (See Christianity 101.)
So none of this conversation should lead to anyone thinking that homosexuals are unworthy of taking Eucharist. The whole point of that ritual is to remember that we are forgiven, for crying out loud!
The purpose of paying attention to what God tells us is "sin" is to a) keep ourselves and our community out of harm's way, and b) help lead us toward God's plan for our lives which are to give us hope and a future. (Jeremiah 29:11-13)
- SDStace October 3, 2008 7:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have re-read the passages in Leviticus with Rick's interpretation in mind that this was solely about types of sex that happened at the shrine - with the notion that perhaps God is not addressing sexual relations that happen within a monogamus loving relationship. What's interesting to me is that Lev 18 lists all kinds of prohibitions: no sex with your relatives; no sex with your neighbor, no sex with someone of the same gender; but it doesn't prohibit sex with your heterosexual spouse. It seems to me that if we were to discount what Lev 18 says on the basis that it was God prohibiting any kind of idolatrous sex ritual, we would see the inclusion of sex with your heterosexual spouse.
It seems to me that God is giving instruction for a broader context.
- SDStace October 3, 2008 7:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Contrary to many beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, I would have to disagree. Homosexuality is much like any sin: lying, stealing, coveting, idolatry, etc. I realize it is a controversial topic in today's society, but it doesn't mean we can ignore the word of God.
One thing I do disagree with is: the way homosexuals are treated by Christians and the church. We are all sinners, like Romans 3:23 says: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We must understand that homosexuality is a sin, like 1 Corinthians 6:9 says: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."
The one thing Christians do tend to do is to judge harshly, the homosexuals. I do not believe this should happen. Homosexuality is just one of many sins, and we all sin daily, no matter who we are. Those of us who recognize this and have asked Jesus for forgiveness will be forgiven, but those who dwell and live in sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. I do know many Christians that struggle with homosexuality, but we should encourage them to listen to God's voice. I do believe many homosexuals will and have gone to heaven, those who truly have a relationship with God and try to obey his commandments.
On a tighter note, I do stand at the point: homosexuality is still a sin.
- quiet4no1 October 16, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The argument that sexuality is determined innately from birth, may be true, but there is a problem with those who want to rape children, have many spouses, murder and so on. Although it seems extreem to use these as examples, many years ago no one would have dreamed in our society that Homosexuals could be married here in the US. It was against the law to practice homosexuality, as it is now against the law to have sex with children and other sexual acts. To be true to yourself, the philosphy of Jean paul Sarte, Existencialism, I believe breaks down when considering that some are born with sociopathic tendencies, and sexial deviencies, homosexuality may be one and we have just chosen to allow it out of compassion. Who doesn't love these people, they are wonderful, but their activities are not. Do what you feel or be what you are is not necessarily the best activity, so we must talk about the argument for homosexuality on another foundation. Thank you for your comments.
- Andante931 November 19, 2008 10:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Do you also say fornication is not sin? What is in the Bible about homosexual marriage?
- Screen Name January 27, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Is incest a sin?
- Screen Name January 27, 2009 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
because it happens more then once in the Bible and there is no mention of divine punishment that I've seen.
- MrBook May 16, 2009 9:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The Bible is clear and God did destroy Sodom and Gomahara over the "unnatural" sin of that city. Winning this argument on a website changes nothing. The final word is with the creator - (blah, blah) aetheist, no god , yeah right. Let's see whose right when you die. Not the time to discover you were wrong. Again, another warning that you are and will be judged. The clock is ticking... tick, tock, tick, tock... I hear the closet calling.
Now that's funny..... :)
- CherryHillPI May 13, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Bible is clear and God did destroy Sodom and Gomahara over the "unnatural" sin of that city.
In Genesis God never explicitly states which sins led to the destruction of Sodom. Indeed it is later stated in Ezekiel 16:49 that the reason why the city was destroyed was due to the arrogance, gluttony, and cruelty.
The Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 109a) gives a much more explicit list of their sins... adultery, blood lust, greed, but never homosexuality .
- MrBook May 16, 2009 9:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5). "For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this-any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman-demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality . Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God’s words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires.
Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let’s look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Verse 11 says "and such WERE some of you.. but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ."
(Notice the past tense, WERE! When they came to Christ, He changed them from the inside out. It can happen I have seen it happen!
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
It is mentioned 5 times in Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. So it is not a cultural thing!
Nor is it, as Rick B. is trying to say, just a cultural thing that Paul was dealing with. It is an issue of morality, one in which Jesus did not erase! The Old Testament dietary laws and sacrificial laws were completed in Christ. However the moral laws were never abolished.
Other places do mention what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was. (Jeremiah 23:14)
Some may ask, "Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?"
The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between and man a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. It's purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society.
Mentioned 5 times in both Old and New Testaments, called an abomination, unnatural, lustful, perverse, it is no wonder that the person who commits such and does not repent of that sin will not enter heaven!
You can't have Jesus and homosexuality also. The two do not mix, like oil and water.
God's word is final in all matters, not history!
- RichWh1 June 10, 2009 12:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
God's word is final, true, however, you cannot take this and run with it. History is relevant in understanding what God's word actually is. Without context, "God's word" is meaningless, or worse, it could be used for antithetical pursuits.
- visavismeyou October 9, 2009 11:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
While history is important and plays an important role in our understanding of what happened in the past and why people of other cultures act as they do, it is not the final authority, and you agree with me on that.
The Bible is the final authority and it remains the final authority in all matters of faithand practice.
I was not saying that history is not important or relevant. I was saying that in intrepreting the Bible, history should not be used where it contradicts the Word of God.
If we use history alone to intreprite the Bible, then we are in trouble! Our histories are packed with immorality, fornication, murder , sexual abuse, and so forth. If we use these actions as standards for verifying the truth of the Bible, then we depend on man's inhumanity to man to explain God's love for man. It cannot be done.
We need to use the histories to understand what God means by what He says. However we cannot allow history to dictate to us what God meant by what He said in His Holy Word. His word is final and not even history can make God's word mean what it was never meant to.
That is all I was saying. Let history interprite history and let the Bible intreprite the Bible.
RichWh1
- RichWh1 October 9, 2009 11:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
History is important and I will agree to that. However history cannot determine what the Word of God means. You are correct, without context, the Word od God is meaningless, which is why we need to keep it in its context and allow the Bible to be its own interpriter. History cannot be the interpriter of God's word any more than God's word can be the intrepriter of history.
They are separate and distinct and both, while valuable, have nothing to do with one another, at least secular history.
God's word is inspired; history is not. If we use history as a leverage, then the evil things that happened in human history become important and relevant when we try to interprite the word of God.
If we allow the Word of God to be its own interpreter, then we are on solid ground.
- RichWh1 October 9, 2009 11:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument relies on an unwarranted assumption: "Both are innate orientations" and then moves on to cite an individual whose opinion does nothing to substantiate the assumption as his credibility to augment the assumption is invalid. Proof by association is specious at best. Proof by inapplicable analogy is flawed.
Your conclusion that ' homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality' does not follow from any of the evidence you cite.
- visavismeyou October 9, 2009 11:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I agree that it is not right to demonize gays as an entire group, or to try to portray ALL gays and lesbians as having participated in the horrible behaviors that are alluded to here.
However, sin is not sin because it involves things that we deem to be negative. The bottom line for Believers and followers of Christ is that sin is what God says it is. Therefore, as far as the question of sin is concerned, it does not matter if gays and lesbians are monogamous or promiscuous, whether they are abusive or kind to one another. Obviously one is worse than the other in a practical sense, but since we can agree promiscuity and other misbehaviors are not characteristic of homosexuality, their presence or absence is not what makes homosexuality right or wrong.
If you are a follower of Christ, in order to believe that homosexual behavior is not a sin, you must believe that the Bible is fundamentally flawed and that this secret has been hidden from God's people for all of recorded history.
Every mention of homosexuality in the Scriptures clearly calls it a sin--both in the Old and New Testaments. There is no example of a homosexual relationship or behavior that is not called sin. No one can say that homosexuality is an expression of God's design without contradicting God's Word.
You'd have to accept that despite the revelations God gave to the Biblical authors, He was never able to get past their homophobia throughout thousands of years--until this enlightened generation came along and discovered what God really said--nevermind that it happens to be perfectly in line with the direction of secular Western culture. The Bible says a lot about that, too.
"..I say it again with tears in my eyes, that there are many whose conduct shows they are really enemies of the cross of Christ.They are headed for destruction. Their god is their appetite..." Philippians 3:18-19
God's Word is not always convenient for us where we find ourselves, but He is the only one who is good and we can trust Him with our lives--and our sexuality. I struggle with homosexuality and submitting that to God is not always easy or convenient for me--but God has the right to demand obedience that goes against my nature. Which He demands of us all, by the way.
"anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:38-39
"...live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other..." Galatians 5:16-17
- Mensley September 8, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The Bible, in it's original language and context, doesn't even address homosexuality as we know it today...much less condemn it.
The bottom line here is that most Christians still use all the old arguments about the Bible condemning homosexuality when it has been proven, time and again, that isn't the case.
I live a vibrant Christian life and have a wonderful relationship with my Lord Jesus Christ. I also live a wonderful life with my female partner of 15 years, who is also a committed Christian. It is possible to please the Lord and still be homosexual. I'm nowhere near perfect, but I know from speaking with the Lord and hearing His voice that He is pleased with me.
- mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"...it has been proven, time and again, that isn't the case."
I don't know of a single time it's been "proven" that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior, let alone "time and time again." Only if you consider it proof for people to promote different ideas based on their own personal preferences.
"The Bible, in it's original language and context, doesn't even address homosexuality as we know it today..."
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "He was never able to get past [the Biblical authors'] homophobia throughout thousands of years--until this enlightened generation came along and discovered what God really said." The idea that we have a somehow higher knowledge of homosexuality--a grasp of what it means to be "gay" that hasn't existed in all of human history, is arrogant and self-deceiving.
- Mensley September 9, 2008 5:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The idea that we have a somehow higher knowledge of homosexuality--a grasp of what it means to be "gay" that hasn't existed in all of human history, is arrogant and self-deceiving."
Okay, so the fact that we progress as human beings and that we know more now about things that were misunderstood in the past is arrogant and self-deceiving?
Case in point... My grandparents were Deaf. When they were growing up, being Deaf was considered the same as being mentally retarded. They were abused and treated as though they were stupid and not worth a whole lot to society. Now, we've learned a lot about deafness and have come to understand that it isn't something that has anything to do with mental dificiency. There are some great minds that are located in people who cannot hear.
That's just one example. To say that progress shouldn't happen because of your own personal views on an issue is what is arrogant. Changes happen all the time. If we don't keep up with it as a society, we will always live in the past. I prefer to go forward, not back. Jesus did too, by the way.
- mmmmysharona September 9, 2008 7:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Understanding what causes deafness or other physical conditions--and learning to treat people with dignity and respect--is not the same as inventing a new philosophy on sexuality and gender and pretending it has a basis in science or Biblical tradition. Which again, has not been "proven" at all. You and many other people want to believe it because it works for you, and that's fine. That's not proof of fact and it's not justification for rewriting Scripture.
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
C. S. Lewis
- Mensley September 9, 2008 7:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Seems to me that the bible has a few verses that support homosexual relationships:
In Samuel 20:41, Jonathan and David kiss each other. When Jonathan dies in battle, David conveys his love for Jonathan when he says, in 2 Samuel 1:26: “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! Most dear have you been to me; your love more wonderful to me surpassing the love of women.” (copied/pasted from an article by Irene Morgan)
Does it boil down to how one interprets the book?
It seems to me God deliberately made homosexuality; perhaps as a way to teach people love and acceptance for all. It's too bad the vast majority of "christians" are failing badly, and most seem to want to "judge not lest thee be judged." Shame on the bigots.
- buckeyenutlover September 13, 2008 10:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
first off, both david and johnathan were married - they weren't gay.
second, it was common for people to greet one another back then with a kiss (paul even suggests it in 1 corin 16:20). look at judas and Jesus ... judas gave Jesus a kiss before he betrayed the Son of GOD. does that mean that both were (are) gay? bring it into today's standards, if i kiss my son does that make us both gay? or how about if i give a simple kiss (peck on the cheek) to my best friend - as david and johnathan did - does that make us gay? no. it just means that i have a dear affection for my best friend (and my son). it means that these men in my life mean a lot to me - that i value their relationship. how about when certain ethnic groups greet each other with a kiss; are they all gay too. this is not a good argument for the pro-gay side.
and here's another thought, i will listen and understand someone's argument that homosexuality isn't spoken against in the Bible (even though i do believe it is). so the greek may be misrepresented and misunderstood (though i don't believe it is). still though, one question comes up time and time again for me: where in scripture does GOD say that homosexuality is right?
it seems to me that whenever GOD talks about marriage, it's always between a man and a woman. whenever GOD talks about lusting after another, the issue is between a man and a woman. whenever GOD talks about parents raising kids, it's between a man and a woman.
buckeyenutlover, you state that "GOD deliberately made homosexuality" ... but if HE did, wouldn't you think that HE would have stated positive reasons for it - and not just negative ones?
some things to ponder.
- six11 September 18, 2008 8:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
well, we all know the bible has been "edited" throughout the years (i.e. the book of judas). perhaps all the pro-homosexuality references were deleted to justify the extremist position against homosexuality. prior to the printing press, it was left to scribes to copy the bible and we all know what can happen when different hands lay claim on text.
and when david conveys his love for jonathan as "more than any women" I guess you should vilify david for the sin against his marriage, eh? oh, guess not, since you have such a narrow interpretation.
let's not forget there's many married men "of god" who are gay. just look at ted haggerd. unfortunately, when people scream about homosexuality, it tends to force other people in the closet.
god loves everyone. to suggest homosexuality is more of a sin than shaving is ridiculous, and cherry-picking what you think is sin and what is not simply shows that you're defying god...judge not lest ye be judged.
- buckeyenutlover September 18, 2008 10:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ok. so let me get this straight (no pun intended). everyone who copied the bible from its original manuscripts just happened to leave out the 'pro-homosexual' verses? hmm. it's a conspiracy i see. just like who really killed JFK.
i'm sorry buckeye ... but are you serious? that's how you answer my questions, by telling me that some bigoted people back in the day took the pro-gay verses out of the bible because they hated homosexuals? well, why hasn't anyone ever gone back to the original documents - cause some are still around - and put back in the verses that were taken out? i mean that would seem like a logical thing to do.
you make a point that there are many 'men of GOD' who are married and yet come out later to be gay. but honestly, i question them on that - and that's probably a whole other debate. still, i highly would debate david being gay. question: if david was gay, how do you deal with his lust and sexual encounter with bathsheba? i don't know many self-proclaimed gay guys that go after women as well - do you?
according to my bible - which is a common one among all Christians - this is what it says about johnathan's love for david: johnathan loved david as he loved himself (1 samuel 20:17). but isn't that the same command Jesus gave to all of us in new testament (mark 12:31)?
next, i would like to also state that if you were to look at my post, no where do i ever state that homosexuality "is more of a sin than" anything else. no where. so please don't put words into my mouth - post. i know full well that homosexuality is not the greatest sin. last time i checked all sin is sin - regardless of who does it and what occurs.
i agree with you that GOD loves everyone. so true. but don't forget that GOD is also a just and righteous GOD, and therefore HE also hates sin. i'm a sinner. you're a sinner. we're all sinners (romans 3:23). GOD doesn't hate me (the sinner) but HE does hate my sin. this is truth - its all throughout scripture.
when i speak, i am not judging you (or homosexuals) in the way that you are referring to (judge not lest ye be judged). i do suggest though that you know the scripture before you use it against someone. what Jesus is talking about is judging people from a hypocritical spirit/mindset - basically being self-righteous. here's an example: if i condemned you for sinning and said that you needed to be perfect like me, that would be judging like we're not suppose to. because i'm not perfect. but if i called you out on a sin, acknowledging that i too need accountability in my life for sins, than i am not judging.
in fact if you are a christian, i have a right to call you out on doing something wrong just like you have a right to call me out (1 corinthians 5:12, proverbs 27:17).
if you are not a christian - which i am not saying you are either way, cause i don't know - but if you're not, and you are offended by what i have written, i am sorry for offending you. its not my intent to argue (nor am i arguing) - though i also will not back down from defending the truth.
i have spent many years within this issue. i feel confident about where i stand and where to draw the line between fact and fiction. and by the way, i would appreciate you answering my questions, if you wouldn't mind. thanks.
- six11 September 18, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
six11 wrote:
"first off, both david and johnathan were married - they weren't gay."
Many people agree with you about that but many people also disagree with you about that.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Couples-In-The-Bible.html
1. The Jonathan and David love relationship is the most carefully described human love relationship in the Bible.
2. Four times the Holy Spirit tells us this male couple loves each other. The Bible never so extravagantly describes a heterosexual marriage relationship.
3. Their mutual love causes them to make a public covenant in which they strip and exchange clothing, I Samuel 18:1-4.
4. King Saul, who knew both men as well as someone could know them, believed their relationship was sexual. Saul uses a vulgar Hebrew idiomatic expression to describe their relationship, I Samuel 20:30.
5. The NIV Study Bible informs us that Saul's vulgar expression in I Samuel 20:30 mentions Jonathan's mother, Queen Ahinoam but the Hebrew expression intends to characterize Jonathan, not Queen Ahinoam.
6. St. John Chrysostom, around AD 350, in his commentary on I Corinthians 13, the love chapter, mentions the mutual love between Jonathan and David as evidence of genuine love.
7. Chrystostom characterizes Jonathan as one who is mad after men, a man chaser.
six11 wrote:
"it was common for people to greet one another back then with a kiss (paul even suggests it in 1 corin 16:20)... if i kiss my son does that make us both gay? or how about if i give a simple kiss (peck on the cheek) to my best friend - as david and johnathan did"
You are assuming that your description of events in the lives of David and Jonathan equals reality. The description in I Samuel 20:41 portrays genuine reality, a searing emotional scene with excessive weeping and kissing between two men who love each other, as the Holy Spirit has clearly told us.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/David-Loved-Jonathan.html
Do you as a heterosexual man, plan time alone with your heterosexual friends to hug, weep and kiss when you have to part company?
six11 wrote:
"where in scripture does GOD say that homosexuality is right?"
The verses you use to say homosexuality is wrong - Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 - when read in context, do not even address a committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnership.
So I direct your question back to you:
Where does the Bible, in context, say that homosexuality is wrong?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
Please provide the verse which, IN CONTEXT, says that committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships are prohibited.
- Rick Brentlinger September 18, 2008 9:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
sorry for taking so long rick - i tried to post a response earlier, but wasn't able to do so for some reason. so i will try and remember what i said in my last response this time around.
i hear what you're saying about david and jonathan, and i have heard these arguments before, but i just am not convinced that this particular situation is talking about two gay guys.
here's how i understand the story of these two guys: david and jonathan were two devoted friends who loved each other - and were even willing to die for each other. i too have a love for my best friend (pete) who i would die for if asked to. i love the guy. but it's not in a homosexual way, as you allude to between david and jonathan.
also, when they are weeping with each other, it's at a time when david and jonathan are going separate ways - most likely never to see each other again. david was running for his life, cause jon's dad wanted to kill him - not to mention kill jonathan too. no wonder they both were crying ... wouldn't you? i know when i moved to another state from pete, we both wept. we both embraced. we both kissed each other goodbye and said 'i love yous'. same was done when pete moved to africa for awhile. there's nothing gay about those situations. i just don't see the connection.
i have read your comments else, so i know you are schooled in this subject, as am i. i also am sure that i won't be able to convince you of my belief, just as i'm sure you won't be able to convince me of yours. though we can agree to disagree, i can still be civil to you. i don't think arguing is going to get anyone anywhere in this issue. truth has been presented from both sides, giving support by their own experts.
in the end only one truth will stand to be correct.
you ask me to give you scripture that condemns "a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership", and well i can't do that because there aren't any verses. in fact there aren't any positive verses about homosexuality anywhere in the bible - only ones calling it a sin. i am under the belief and conviction that the verses you listed above are in fact in context and speak out against homosexuality (even "committed and faithful" relationships of such).
as i asked the above poster before me, where does GOD approve of homosexuality in the Bible? so far no one has answered that question. i think its a valid one to be asked and should be answered. whenever GOD speaks about marriage, parenting, or even men lusting with their eyes, it is always between a man and a woman. wouldn't you think that if GOD 'made people gay' and allowed them to be gay that HE would have spoken about such relationships in the Bible - positively and not just negatively?
thanks for the conversation.
- six11 September 19, 2008 1:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
six11 wrote:
"i am under the belief and conviction that the verses you listed above are in fact in context and speak out against homosexuality (even "committed and faithful" relationships of such)."
If we approach the Bible without the presupposition that homosexuality is wrong, it is difficult to conclude from what the Bible says, in context, that committed, faithful, non-cultic homosexual partnerships are wrong.
Take the Sodom story for instance. It is alleged to be a story condemning homosexuality in the strongest fashion possible.
If homosexuality is wrong, we would expect the Bible to say so in some of the 48 places where Sodom is mentioned in the Bible. Instead, we discover that wherever Sodom is mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is not mentioned or condemned.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
If I cited Genesis 34 (a passage about heterosexual rape) as a proof text against heterosexuality, you would contend that its wrong to take a passage about rape and based on that passage, condemn heterosexuality.
Yet Exodus and most anti-gay Christians feel no remorse in using a passage about attempted violent rape as a proof text that homosexuality is wrong.
In the Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 portion of the Holiness Code, God carefully places His proscription of male male sex in the context of pagan worship, Lev 18:3, taking care to mention Molech in Lev 18:21, just before prohibiting male male sex in Lev 18:22.
In the Leviticus 20:13 passage, we find the same context. God carefully mentions and forbids Molech worship in Lev 20:2, 3, 4, 5 and then prohibits male male sex in Lev 20:13 and then reiterates the pagan worship context in Lev 20:23.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
*******************************
I wonder then, what informs your "belief and conviction" that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, even "committed and faithful" relationships?
How did you get convicted to believe something the Bible does not say?
*******************************
You asked, Where does God approve of homosexuality in the Bible?
I believe God approves of committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships in the true story of the 15 year committed relationship Jonathan and David enjoyed, I Samuel 18 - II Samuel 9.
Of course most scriptures about marriage partnerships deal with the 95% norm. For the other 5%, exclusive, same sex marriage partnerships between two men or two women were NOT the norm in Biblical times.
Therefore, there was no reason to address the issue of gay marriage in the Bible, just as there was no reason to address the issue of nuclear energy back then.
six11 wrote:
"if GOD 'made people gay' and allowed them to be gay... HE would have spoken about such relationships in the Bible - positively"
Okay. Please carefully read Matthew 19:11-12.
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Jesus does speak positively about "born eunuchs."
A "born eunuch" is someone who was born without the desire for opposite sex marriage in the Adam and Eve model and Jesus specifically exempts "born eunuchs" from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm.
The leading anti-gay evangelical, Dr. Robert Gagnon, admits that:
"Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined..."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
I'm enjoying our conversation.
- Rick Brentlinger September 19, 2008 8:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
hey rick,
my bad for the long wait. i've had some pressing 'youth ministry' issues that i needed to attend to. anyways, let's carry on this conversation.
in regards to your question about sodom ... just because the word "homosexual" doesn't always accompany the passages about sodom's sin, doesn't mean that it wasn't apart of sodom's downfall. notice that i say 'apart'. i agree with you that homosexuality wasn't the only sin that brought destruction upon the city, but it definately played its role. i read your comments about how JESUS never said anything about homosexuality and sodom, so therefore the sin of sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality. i totally disagree with you. i think that the homosexual sin was well known to people, so HE didn't have to explain it. when people spoke of sodom, they connected the sin of homosexuality to it. i can see JESUS talking about the other sins within the town more so because these sins were often overlooked, as 'petty issues' so to say, just as they still are in most american churches today.
jude 1:7 connects sodom with 'sexual immorality' - which includes homosexual relationships: In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. ( http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Sodom&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no )
here's a question i have with your argument. knowing that several other towns/cities were rude and had horrible towards GOD'S messengers, why didn't GOD also destroy those places as well? you state in your article that, "The sin of Sodom, according to Jesus, was inhospitality to God’s messengers." but if this is true, then why didn't GOD destroy Jerusalem because the Jews rejected the messages of the disciples. why didn't GOD destroy every other place that rejected HIS messengers?
in speaking about the passages of scripture used to call homosexuality as sin - especially Leviticus - all i can say is that GOD'S word is GOD'S word. the natural order GOD set up in the beginning was male and female, and the charge for them was to produce offspring. i do believe that those verses of homosexuality do condemn it mostly because it went totally against the created order GOD established over us. regardless if it's pagan worship or committed same-sex relationships, is still against what GOD set into place.
in addition to this, there are several other times when GOD talks about things being an abomination (toevah) that are not connected to idol worship, such as Proverbs 6:16-19. as joe dallas notes in his book a strong delusion, "the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus appear alongside other sexual sins ... which are forbidden in both [testaments] ... [these references] show GOD'S displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved" (193). he also makes another point stating that if these other practices only pertained to idol worship, then child sacrifice, adultery, incest, and the like would all be permissible as long as it was done apart form idol worship. rick, that's exactly what you're suggesting as well. outside of 'idol worship' is incest a sin? what about adultery? child sacrifice?
again, you mention about david and jonathan and their 'same-sex' relationship. i think we beat that issue over the head enough times. if both men were gay, explain the wives they had - was their 'gayness' like a light switch? it doesn't make sense.
you stated: For the other 5%, exclusive, same sex marriage partnerships between two men or two women were NOT the norm in Biblical times.
well if this is correct, my question is why wasn't it the norm back then? if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, even back in the day, why wasn't it a norm just like every other couple in a committed relationship? i think it wasn't the norm because everyone knew it was a sin! yeah, JESUS never spoke about it, so the 'silence argument' can be used, but then again i can use the same argument - JESUS never accepted the lifestyle either. never!
**************************************************************************
you asked me why i have a deep conviction of this topic and where i stand on. my conviction simply comes from years of studying this subject by pouring over scripture, reading books (from both sides), praying, and other things.
this past august marked an 8 year journey out of homosexuality. up until that point, i was very active in 'the life', even at one time being engaged to a man (i am 30 now). my convictions are born out of what GOD has done within my life and the revelation HE has given me through HIS word by HIS Spirit. like i said before, this is my conviction.
- six11 September 25, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
six11 wrote:
>>>>>"i think that the homosexual sin was well known to people, so HE [Jesus] didn't have to explain it. when people spoke of sodom, they connected the sin of homosexuality to it."<<<<<
Shawn-
Even ANTI-GAY evangelical Christians now agree with gay Christians, that Sodom was NOT about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Bob Davies, former Executive Director of Exodus International, admits that:
"Pro-gay theologians are correct in saying that this passage [Genesis 19] does not provide a strong argument [for] prohibiting all homosexual acts." - from his book, Coming Out Of Homosexuality, published in 1993.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
If it was common knowledge in Jesus' day that Sodom was a warning against homosexual sin, then there would be abundant historical proof in the 1700+ years between the time the events of Sodom took place and the first century AD.
The human authors of inspired scripture and Jewish writers outside of scripture would have identified the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. Instead, what we see is that none of them identified the sin of Sodom as homosexuality until around the first century. Here is what ancient Jews believed about the sin of Sodom.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
Biblical authors identify the sin of Sodom as idolatry [shrine prostitution, for example] or adultery or pride or prosperity and greed or refusal to help the poor and needy [lack of hospitality] - Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel.
Writers outside the inspired scriptures identified the sin of Sodom as pride and refusal to be kind to strangers traveling through their land.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
six11 wrote:
>>>>>"jude 1:7 connects sodom with 'sexual immorality' - which includes homosexual relationships"<<<<<
That statement is inaccurate. Jude used the Greek word, heteros, to identify the kind of sin that was being committed in Sodom.
Had Jude intended us to believe the sin of Sodom was related to same sex activity, he would have used the Greek word, homoios, which is the root of our English word, homosexual.
six11 wrote:
>>>>>"knowing that several other towns/cities were rude and had horrible towards GOD'S messengers, why didn't GOD also destroy those places as well?"<<<<<
History testifies that God is full of grace toward humanity, even in the midst of sin.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-is-grace.html
six11 wrote:
>>>>>"joe dallas notes in his book a strong delusion, "the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus appear alongside other sexual sins ... which are forbidden in both [testaments] ... [these references] show GOD'S displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved" (193). he also makes another point stating that if these other practices only pertained to idol worship, then child sacrifice, adultery, incest, and the like would all be permissible as long as it was done apart form idol worship. rick, that's exactly what you're suggesting as well. outside of 'idol worship' is incest a sin? what about adultery? child sacrifice?"<<<<<
The problem with this question is that it ASSUMES Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is talking about homosexuality and is not talking about shrine prostitution.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, stated 2000 years ago, that he believed Moses was talking about shrine prostitution in Leviticus. This Link gives 9 answers to your question about child sacrifice, adultery, incest and the like [beastiality] for instance.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Beastiality.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 25, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Here is the Link I forgot to include in my previous post. It quotes the Babylonian Talmud to prove what ancient Jews believed about the sin of Sodom...
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Babylonian-Talmud-On-Sodom.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 25, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Many anti-gay Christians use the word, sodomite, to describe gay men and lesbians.
What is a sodomite in the Bible?
If we deal honestly with what the Bible actually says, we cannot honestly, factually or ethically say that gay men and lesbians are sodomites.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/sodomites.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 25, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Well, now the bible also never mentions Cars, Computers, Schools, Drugs and other things to… so I guess that means its ok???
does the bible ever condone sex outside of a married man and women? NO.. Does the bible say that women was created for man? YES
“. david and jonathon were actually in love
and as much as people want to say it wasn't like that if you really read the
description of there relationship in the bible it sounds alot like it. it even
says something that could be construed as a marriage. “
I will try to make this as short as possible, but in order for you to understand this is much to say..
People often use the tale above to showcase homosexuals in Gods favor. This is so far from the truth.. first lets point out some thing from that verse….
“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;” Huh?? I thought Albert said they were lovers???? But he says brother… ok now that I pointed that out lets move on to the more important verses that disprove of any homosexual acts, and futher more sablize the view of Christians that God is pro man and women marriage”
In Genesis Chapter 2 We read of God forming man out of the dust of the earth.
Then God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone I will make a helper suitable for him” in verse 18
Now, at this point God created Eve, Not from the dust, but from man himself, making her his equal. And what did adam say about this eve??
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh...” (2:23)
Thus the stage has been set, man for women, women for man. But lets look further in Gods word.. “...a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (2:24).
Notice here that it not only states the women is the mans wife, but they are again “one flesh” now if you fast forward to the new testament in in Mark 10:6-9 Jesus Brings up this “one flesh” and says that no one is to divide it… Clearly a pro heterosexual message here in the bible..
The whole of Scripture echoes this prohibition by God of any sex outside marriage,(the one Flesh) hence adultery, fornication, bestiality and homosexuality etc are forbidden for those seeking to obey their Creator.
Now, We know that God intended man and women to be together, bc that’s how he created it, and his son said again that they are one flesh, and this one flesh is to be fruitful and multiply.. one last thing, look at the word used for love
אהב אהב , 'âhab 'âhêb , aw-hab', aw-habe' This word for love is used in the sence of FRIENDSHIP, not for intimacy or relationships between lovers. You have to understand in English there is only one word love, in greek and Hebrew there are more, some for friends love, mothers love, fathers love, husbands love..
“besides that there is never a law in the bible that says marriage is between a man and a woman. that's just an inference that lot's of people make. “
Almost every qualification for a church leader listed in the bible carries with it the following “ he ( that’s a man) must be the Husband of 1 (one) Wife (that’s a women)
There is a clearly a refrence again to the One Flesh originally started by GOD. And as a law given by GOD to the leaders, there is no reason to believe God would change the law for others.
- joshuajared2000 September 26, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I found this very interesting:
4. King Saul, who knew both men as well as someone could know them, believed their relationship was sexual. Saul uses a vulgar Hebrew idiomatic expression to describe their relationship, I Samuel 20:30.
This does not mean they were sexual, in fact, but rather that someone -- in this case, someone in scripture who has a rather sordid track record :) -- accused one of them of being sexual.
Perhaps it it because he did not know that a man can have deep and abiding connection with another man without sexual intercourse.
Because I try to read the account of David & Jonathan for what it is, and not what I seek it to be, I see no reason to assume that they were sexual just because they were intimate. Intimacy (even kissing or weeping-level intimacy) does not require sexual intercourse as a matter of course.
Frankly, I think a lot of homosexual men (myself included, perhaps), have confused intimacy with sexual intercourse. You can have one without the other, for certain.
- trellus December 14, 2008 7:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree with you that Saul's vulgar sexual characterization of the Jonathan and David relationship does not prove that J & D had a sexual relationship. I make that statement in my book, Gay Christian 101.
On the other hand, Saul's statement provides contemporary eye witness testimony about the sexual intimacy of their partnership, from a man who knew both men.
And the fact that the Holy Spirit chose to include Saul's testimony in the text of scripture raises an interesting question.
If God is as anti-gay as He is alleged to be, why does He include in scripture, this LONG story, chapter after chapter, detailing the loving, intimate, committed partnership of Jonathan and David?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/David-and-Jonathan.html
There is more in the Bible about the Jonathan and David partnership than about the creation of the universe.
Scripture vividly contrasts the loving, committed partnership of Jonathan and David with the failed marriage of David and Princess Michal and with the violent, murderous relationship between King Saul, David and Jonathan. Saul tried to kill both David and Jonathan.
Certainly you are correct that two men can have an intimate friendship without being sexual. Yet that assertion does not in any way support the contention that Jonathan and David were no more than close friends.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/David-Loved-Jonathan.html
- Rick Brentlinger December 14, 2008 8:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with you, Rick, that for most people, they take comfort in believing that David + Jonathan were what I will term "mere" "close friends", as this keeps them from having to approach that "gay" word. :) A simple reading of the text makes it clear to me, at least, that they were much closer than that; their souls were knit together, and does this not speak of some kind of union?
I only say that the lack of the scripture indicating that they DID in fact have *sexual* union is *important*, because to extrapolate that they did merely because the Bible records that their closeness was such that Saul accused them of this is not valid. The same happens today to someone who has a "gay" relationship today, frankly -- some of my close friends cannot believe that I have not had sexual union with my current roommate, for example, because we are both "gay" and very close and from external appearances appear frankly almost as a couple.
What I am positing is that David + Jonathan was something very close to what we would call a "gay" relationship today, but quite possibly (or even probably) without sexual intercourse. Certainly, I will not make the assumption that they were having sexual intercourse merely because of their closeness!
- trellus December 14, 2008 9:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Hey there,
I have two problems with the view that David was gay. Firstly the Bible never says David and Jonathan "lay together", which supports the cultural view that D&J were not a couple. If the Holy Spirit REALLY wanted to say that same-sex sex is okay, surely telling us D&J had sex would have been the simplest way to say so?
My second problem is a larger than life woman called Bathsheba (2 Sam 11). Surely if David was gay, his adultery would have been to murder her, and chase Uriah, her husband?! His actions with her are VERY inconsistent with those of a gay man, aren't they?
Just a thought... :-)
- Gay Christian June 15, 2009 11:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
------- "Firstly the Bible never says David and Jonathan "lay together", which supports the cultural view that D&J were not a couple." -------
God (not gays) chose to emphasize the David and Jonathan story in the Bible, chapter after chapter. This exceptional love story receives major emphasis because God the Holy Spirit, the ultimate Author of scripture, intended to give it major emphasis.
The Holy Spirit spends more time describing the love relationship between David and Jonathan than He spends describing David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. The Bible never so extravagantly and extensively describes a heterosexual marriage relationship.
David and Princess Michal's partnership was an arranged marriage while David and Crown Prince Jonathan's partnership clearly involved mutual love.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jonathan-Loved-David.html
I believe this story, part of Hebrew scripture for three thousand years, is God’s way of encouraging the modern Christians to affirm faithful, committed gay partnerships. Will modern Christians listen to God?
------- "My second problem is a larger than life woman called Bathsheba (2 Sam 11). Surely if David was gay, his adultery would have been to murder her, and chase Uriah, her husband?! His actions with her are VERY inconsistent with those of a gay man, aren't they?" -------
Interesting point, Gay Christian. It helps our understanding if we keep the timeline in mind. At the time of the Bathsheba incident, Crown Prince Jonathan has been dead for many years.
The fifteen year partnership between Jonathan and David ended with Jonathan's untimely death in battle. By necessity, David has moved on, taking heterosexual wives, as ancient Kings did, to produce offspring who will inherit his kingdom.
Yet remember David's testimony about Jonathan, given years earlier as a eulogy before David's mighty army.
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant have you been to me: your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." -2 Samuel 1:26
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Couples-In-The-Bible.html
- Rick Brentlinger June 15, 2009 12:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Your argument only takes in God's mercy and ignores His justice. Given your point of view why would Jesus need to go to the cross? Homosexuality is a sin as any other sexual sin. No different then adultery, fornication, internet porn or premarital sex. Many who look at this argument are stressing a point of perception that the gay and lesbian community and those who support them are trying to incorporate into American culture. God's righteous doesn't change to meets today's modern opinions. He does not condemn the homosexual from eternal life through repentance just as he doesn't bar the theft or internet porn addict, so long as they repent. None of us are permitted a "Mulligan", a sin we are allowed to engage in that is shielded from which God asks us to repent.
The most difficult ideal for gay and lesbian Christians to accept is their active engagement in their lifestyle is asked by the Father to be left at the Cross. Many liberal Christians have developed a pick and chose mentality of Christian faith and it has led many astray. V. Gene Robinson is a classic example, how can one lead a flock while being actively engaged in his most deep rooted sin. It engulfs his entire flock, they thus become embroiled in the entire debate of sexual sin, instead of growing in Christ. Sadly this has shielded active sinners into a false sense of security as they believe they are right with God, when actually they are in bondage to the one thing they won't give to Him. I tell you would a homosexual say it is ok to strike a brother, NO. Would he allow a child to be sexually abused, NO. Thus homosexuals pointing out that they don't live any more differently then straights, means nothing. Because some homosexuals display behavior openly means little, sin is sin whether out in the open or behind closed doors.
- bambino33 October 11, 2008 9:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
People have used the Bible to support many false teachings and agendas. It has been used to defend polygamy, Aryanism, racism, slavery, crusades, and the oppression of women. Just because scriptures have been used out of context and manipulated in the past by people with harmful and wicked agendas does not invalidate their veracity. For our ancestors to use scripture to defend the institution of American slavery was to use scripture out of context. In the same way, to use scripture to defend the acceptability of homosexual behavior is to use it out of context. I appreciate the quote by George MacDonald:
"To give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation."
The point has been made by many that Christ never said anything condemning homosexuality. However, there is also an absence of biblical condemnation of slavery. In fact, it gave regulations for slaves and slave owners (slavery during Greco-Roman era was vastly different than the atrocity of Western-European and American slavery). This line of thinking was used by slave owners to justify their position which contradicted the biblical doctrine of man. If there is a parallel in this discussion of homosexuality, it is the use of the same strategy to justify homosexual behavior.
This argument and other arguments regarding the issues surrounding slavery cannot be effectively utilized in defending homosexuality. The major difference is that there are multiple scriptural references condemning homosexual behavior. People cannot defend sexual practices clearly condemned by biblical teaching in the same way as our “pro-slavery” Christian ancestors may have done in defending slavery. There cannot be the claim that the Bible actually affirms this practice and offers no condemnation of it. Therefore, to claim that scripture is being used to promote the condemnation of homosexuality in the same manner as it was to promote the establishment of American slavery is invalid.
- J Buchanan September 10, 2008 7:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In his 520 page book, THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, anti-gay evangelical Christian activist, Dr. Robert Gagnon, devotes more than ten pages to proving his assertion that "homosexual shrine prostitution" was the primary form of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
So there's no misunderstanding, Dr. Gagnon is adamantly against every kind of homosexual relationship. That's why his opinion about the prevalence of shrine prostitution in ancient Israeli is so startling.
When the leading anti-gay evangelical Christian activist admits in print, that gay Christians are right (that the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is shrine prostitution), we have already won a major part of the argument.
Carefully note what Dr. Robert Gagnon says.
“I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel." - Gagnon, p. 130
"There is good evidence of homosexual cult prostitution in Israel during the period of the divided monarchy.” p. 100.
The [Hebrew] term [qedesim/qades] denotes “men at cult sites who engaged in homosexual prostitution: male temple (or cult, shrine, sacred) prostitutes.” p. 101.
Qedesim “...one of whose cultic functions was to offer their bodies to other men for same-sex intercourse.” p. 102.
“two other occurances of qedesa in the Bible (Gen 38:21-22; Hos 4:14) also link it with the term zona, “prostitute, harlot.”p. 103. Homosexuality wrong?
“The remark in I Kgs 14:24 that the people of Judah “conformed their behavior to all the abominations (toebot) of the nations which Yahweh dispossessed” sounds remarkably like the summary in Lev 18:24-30, which followed a listing of sexual offenses that singled out in particular same-sex male intercourse as an “abomination.”” p. 103.
“the same-sex role of the assinu, kugarru, and kuluu (who, owing to castration, were certainly unsuitable partners for heterosexual intercourse and impregnation) does provide good evidence for homosexual cult prostitution.” p. 104.
“The harsh descriptions of the qedesim in I-2 Kings (I Kgs 14:24: “even qades were in the land”) and Job 36:14, along with the epithet of “dog” in Deu 23:18, suggests a degree of revulsion more suited to same-sex male cult prostitution.” p. 104.
“That means Josiah’s action against the qedesim in the temple precincts was likely taken as a direct result of laws in Deut 23:17-18 regarding the qedesim or “dogs.”” p. 106.
“It can hardly be denied that... (the author of Job 36:14) regarded the qedesim as homosexual cult prostitutes.” p. 108.
“Cult association is established by the name “holy/consecrated ones” and by the connection to Asherah. The element of prostitution is clear from Deut 23:17-18 (fees for services rendered) and the connection to qedesot, who elsewhere are identified as harlots.” p. 108. Homosexuality wrong?
“The same-sex dimension is suggested by the label “dogs,” by history of religion parallels, and by the unlikelihood of male heterosexual prostitution.” p. 108.
“The existence of homosexual shrine prostitutes in Judah was a recurring problem.” Dr. Robert Gagnon, p. 110."
Its not gay people who are taking the Bible out of context.
Its the Christian anti-gay activists who take the Bible out of context.
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 3:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
That is interesting. I am going to forward this to a friend of mine and see what he says. He is a Jewish Theologian and Historian. I wander if he will agree with what is said about those verses. It should be interesting should he join the discussion.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am convinced many anti-gay Christians intentionally misrepresent what the Bible says. Its not difficult to discover what Jewish believers wrote and taught about shrine prostitutes thousands of years ago.
But since ancient Jewish teaching does not fit with current anti-gay teaching in so many churches, they prefer to ignore the truth or misrepresent it, hoping no one will notice.
NEWSFLASH!!! We've noticed!!!
Ancient Jewish writers frequently linked same sex shrine prostitution with the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
For example, every passage in the Bible which is alleged to prohibit same sex partnerships, when read in doctrinal or historical context, is always referring to shrine prostitution.
The human authors of the Bible did this intentionally because they were not referring to homosexuality in general and they most assuredly were not referring to female-female partnerships since those partnerships are never prohibited in the Old Testament.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish writer was a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Philo believed that Moses' use of arsenos koiten in Leviticus 20:13 referred to shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Beastiality.html
God bless you in your search for truth.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
- Rick Brentlinger November 13, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What is "homosexuality", really? Affection, including sexual desire, for someone of the same sex? I do not see how this is sinful, particularly if one understands that desire is not synonymous with lust. The prohibition in Leviticus seems somewhat vague to me, because I am not sure what it means for a man to "lie with a man as with a woman" -- is this just a euphemistic, sanitized way to prohibit male-male insertive intercourse? Or is it perhaps even broader as it seems to be with just a simple reading perhaps less encumbered by a preconceived notion?
One thing I noted in the many very well written posts by Rick Brentlinger is what seems to my mind to be a tendency by "pro-gay" theologians to infuse apparently unfavorable passages (like Romans 1) with a lot of "context" that, while important, still do not nullify the negative characterization given to same-sex activity for reason of it being "same sex". As an example, in Romans 1:26-27, regardless of the particular context, it is the same-sex nature itself that is called a "vile affection" or "degrading passion", "men with men committing indecent acts". I agree that this evokes a different picture if we view it either narrowly in the context of modern Western gay culture or in the context in which Paul wrote it and which is described well on the site Rick referenced.
However, the language strongly convinces me that Paul *is* characterizing in one sense or another the same-sex sexual passion *itself* as "vile" or "degrading"; because he condemns idolatry and fornication (the other elements that happened to be present in these rituals), also, separately, above and below verses 26 and 27. In fact, given the ordering of the verses and how he writes, he seems to me to be making the case that idolatry in a nation (a people) *leads* to the eventual cultivation in the nation of these "vile affections", which he finds self-evidently degrading in their very nature. (To paraphrase Paul, "They didn't want to honor God, but began to worship themselves and other created things more than the Creator himself... so God let them come to the natural conclusion of such a choice to dishonor God, for to dishonor God is to necessarily dishonor one's own body, and one of the ways they dishonor their own bodies is in sexual activity that is 'against natural function.', and an example of this is men in sexual union with other men. ")
To me, the core problem is what I find to be a very odd belief (odd to my mind at least) that what we call today the "Bible", which is a set of writings with a long tradition, no doubt, but which *was* compiled over time and some point canonized by men, through their best efforts yet mere men all the same, is a closed book and that we don't do a lot more individual "watching" and "praying" as Jesus instructed us fervently to do, and to come to *know* on a deeply personal level what is meant by the prophet Jeremiah, in chapter 31, about having the law written "on [our] inward parts."
I hope we can all, me included, strip away our need for dogma and tradition, and even the need to have our view of this as we currently now understand it, accepted as "the correct one."
I have had these thoughts arise in my mind as a result of seeking the truth:
(1) It has struck me, in my mind, to be without dispute that sexual activity within the same sex is never referenced positively in the canonized Bible (and how we "chose" our Bible, as I said earlier, is itself an issue for me to ponder), and is basically written about in a negative manner exclusively.
(2) I believe that there is an unhealthy and "unbiblical", if you will, wrong-headed notion among 'traditional' Christians that same-sex affection (a la David and Jonathan) is itself a sin, and should be viewed with suspicion, and that men who choose to have significant male companions (whether married or not) are "gay" and therefore are in sin.
(3) It also seems that God is in constant communication with truth-seekers, and that those who listen with truly open hearts, not holding their own lives and identities (and there are "gay" identities and "religious" identities, equally prevalent) sacrosanct, nor any of their current beliefs about God or their own activities, will begin to manifest God's will for their lives as a matter of course, and won't need the comfort of knowing they are within someone else's expected boundaries, or have the fear that they are stepping outside of 'orthodoxy.'
(4) I have on more than one occasion mused on Acts 11, on the vision Peter had in which he told the Lord he would not eat anything common or unclean, and God reprimanded him *three* times with, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common". What if we are in a similar time, in which that which was previously unclean and abominable (as per Leviticus) is now being cleansed? This was before Peter ministered to *Gentiles*, whom Jesus had characterized as "dogs" in the gospel of Matthew.
- trellus December 13, 2008 3:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
That being so, there are NO Biblical passages which condemn committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Only by taking the clobber passages out of their cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context can they be made to condemn two gay men who love each other or two lesbian women who love each other and want to spend their lives together.
Talking to anti-gay Christians can be frustrating because they ping pong back and forth between equally inconsistent arguments.
They will admit that, in context, none of the clobber passages is NOT talking about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Then they ping pong back to their Complementarian argument, that since God originally created Adam and Eve, that "proves" God could never affirm Adam and Steve.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/adam-and-eve.html
When it is pointed out that Adam and Eve (one man with one woman for life) did NOT indicate God's prohibition of polygamy (notice Genesis 4:19 where the first polygamous marriage occurs and Deuteronomy 21:15 where God makes provision for inheritance in polygamous marriage situations)
anti-gay Christians then ping pong back to the clobber passages and opine that it is "clear" that God is talking about homosexuality, even though they previously admitted that the context is shrine prostitution, NOT a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
Ah, the joys of debating the Bible with the brethren...
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Mission.html
- Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This statement to me seems to sum up my problem with the way in which the "pro-gay" argument is developed:
"For me, the most consistent, honest understanding of all the clobber passages is that the Bible is addressing shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships."
Here, we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture mind you, and I would submit, for our own conveniences perhaps, same-sex unions into acceptable ones ("committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships", a categorization that does not exist as defined like this at all in any of the accepted scriptures and on which scripture is strangely silent) and unacceptable ones (the ones which are presumably cultic, unfaithful, or non-committed). This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture, in my thinking.
If this partition existed in reality in Paul's mind, or in any of the other authors of the books of the Bible, why are these acceptable unions never mentioned *at all*? I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context. Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection".
I think it's pretty clear from Romans 1 that Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul) is casting aspersions on same-sex sexuality in general by referring to them as "vile affections" or "degrading passions". Just because he happened to be speaking also in a larger context beyond this does not explain the language he uses to disparage same-sex union itself ("men with men committing indecent acts") as part of a larger argument in which he decries their idolatry (which he says leads to these vile affections), fornication, being full of evil, etc.
I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text, when it is simply not necessary to agree with Paul. Paul is not God. He is not even the Son of God. Even Peter was wrong and had to be corrected (by Paul, Galatians 2:11), and Peter was used mightily of God and under the power of the Holy Spirit, convinced many Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and yet he was and is not infallible. Why should we consider Paul to be infallible?
I believe that only God can judge, and yet, I have a suspicion that Paul's characterization of same-sex could possibly be just short-sighted and not take into account how God can expand the tent, so to speak, while being still just, as he told Peter in Acts 11, "Do not call what I have cleaned, common or unclean." The Jews believed with all their hearts, Peter amongst them even post-Pentecost, that the prohibition against eating certain foods was still in force, and more importantly, that salvation was still for the Jews and not yet (if ever) for the unclean "dogs", the Gentiles.
- trellus December 13, 2008 5:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I disagree with your reasoning in a number of areas.
First, you have simply reworded (however inadvertently) the anti-gay viewpoint of Robert Gagnon which asserts that scripture condemns every same sex partnership without distinguishing between committed faithful non-cultic partnerships and shrine prostitute couplings (Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice) when you say:
>>>>"we partitioned, outside of the context of the scripture... same-sex unions into acceptable ones... and unacceptable ones... This partitioning did not exist at all in scripture"<<<<
I submit that scripture does differentiate (partition) same sex sexual activity and that this differentiation/partition was recognized by the authors of scripture who wrote about Sodom, by the authors of scripture who alluded to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and by Jewish rabbis and philosophers like Philo of Alexandria.
All of them focused on shrine prostitution when discoursing on these verses, as did the rabbis whose human wisdom fills the Babylonian Talmud.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Babylonian-Talmud-On-Sodom.html
Further, Dr. Gagnon (THE most ardent anti-gay evangelical alive today) contradicts your assertion on pages 100-110 and 130 of his book when he asserts the primacy of shrine prostitution in ancient Israel and remarks that shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel.
Gagnon, the anti-gay crusader, differentiates committed faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships from the shrine prostitution against which Moses and God inveigh in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Second, EVERY human author of scripture who mentions Sodom fails to link Sodom to homosexuality.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
Third, EVERY human author of scripture who alludes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 links the verses to shrine prostitution or the qadesha (shrine prostitutes).
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
>>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Repentance.html
- Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 10:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In attempting to buttress your argument I believe you vastly overreach when you state:
>>>>"I submit, because at *least at that time*, the writers of scripture quite probably saw any same-sex sexual union *only in that context*, and couldn't conceive of it outside of an idolatrous, cultic context."<<<<
Yet as noted above, NO human author of scripture links the sinful activities of Genesis 19 - Sodom and the sinful activities of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships.
Your assertion that the writers of scripture saw ANY same sex union in the context of idolatry is an opinion, not necessarily an historical fact. The fact is, Jewish rabbis before, during and after the time of Christ, did discuss lesbianism and determined that lesbians are not included in the Levitical prohibitions.
Your next assertion is more opinion, masquerading as fact.
>>>>"Hence, Paul argues in this very passage that idolatry, in his mind, *leads* to this kind of "vile affection"."<<<<
That is your opinion of Paul's argument. In point of fact, Paul's argument is focused on the consequences of idolatry, not an alleged condemnation of gay men and lesbians in Romans 1:26-27.
Paul's argument posits idolatrous same sex activity - worship of the fertility goddess - as the result of idolatry.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
To read Paul's words as a condemnation of faithful committed non-cultic same sex partnerships is an egregious mis-reading of the scriptures. It assumes "facts" not in evidence and reads into scripture what scripture manifestly does not say.
Aristides, preaching and writing within 70 years of 58 A.D., (when Paul wrote Romans), understood Paul's words to refer to shrine prostitution.
Justin Martyr, writing within 100 years of Paul, understood Paul to be speaking of shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
You seem to be asserting that:
>>>>"Paul (not God, mind you, but Paul)"<<<<
is the ultimate writer of Romans, a popular but unsubstantiated opinion in our post-Christian age.
I disagree with what I understand you to be saying, since I strongly believe in the God-breathed purity, verbal inspiration, absolute authority, infallibility and inerrancy of scripture.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Scripture.html
>>>>"I really think the reason why your argument is not convincing to many is because it overreaches and flies in the face of a simple reading of the text"<<<<
A text without a context is a pretext for teaching something that is not true.
The overreaching is almost entirely on the side of those who refuse to factor in the context God and Moses addressed in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
In some cases they acknowledge the context and then insist (as you seem to be doing), that the Bible still condemns committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in these passages DESPITE the context.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/eDisciples.html
- Rick Brentlinger December 13, 2008 10:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dr. Gagnon's assertion that "shrine prostitution was the primary manifestation of homosexual activity in ancient Israel" and that he differentiates between "faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships" and shrine prostitution bolsters my argument that the writers of scripture had no vision of "faithful, non-cultic" same sex union, not contradicts it. My point was that you (and perhaps even the "anti-gay" Dr. Gagnon) have created this differentiation that doesn't exist *in scripture* -- the differentiation may exist *outside of scripture*, but where does it exist in scripture?
If there is a differentiation *in scripture*, where are the references to the "faithful, non-cultic same-sex" marriages? I have yet to see them. The silence of scripture on this "other" category of presumably "blessed" same-sex union is non-sensical if the partition/differentiation you claim really did exist in scripture. It is particularly non-sensical if you believe in the sufficiency of the 66 books of the Bible (chosen by man) to forever declare *all* that needs to be said by God, because then your argument of this other cateogry of blessed same-sex union was *never* addressed in scripture, so I fail to see how it can be blessed by your God and your Bible?
- trellus December 14, 2008 6:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I often wander why people use the Bible as valid data to back anything up. I am neither for nor against it. I do not know enough about it to know.
I do know that people sure can find allow of places to stand on it with just about any subject.
This is interesting.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I hear constantly about the "outdated" and "no longer applicable" verses in Leviticus - I recently read about a youngish - 40 something man- who had lived-according to modern standads- a relatively "righteous" life; but now he has throat cancer - why? it turns out that if you engage in oral sex the chances of acquiring the pap virus that causes cervical cancer in women- will increase your chances of oral and throat cancer, and it increases when you have multiple partners. The manifestation of throat cancer in younger patients who have never smoked or "engaged in risky behavior" is rising at an alarming rate. Why? because we have changed and accepted as "normal" what the Bible has prohibited or declared a sin. A man was designed to enter a woman, and a woman was designed to receive a man.Jesus dealt with remarriage, divorce, and He clearly stated what constitutes marriage - a man and a woman. And only one man for one woman, and only one woman for one man. We have a wondrous beautiful God of order and elegant, beautiful design. That His creation has been warped and deformed by sin is a fact. "creation groans under the weight of man's sin" we are told how ALL creation waits for the day of the redeemed - we live under Grace - "do we continue in sin in order to attain more grace? - may it never be!!!"
- LPL September 10, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I truly don't understand why the concept of "sin" is raised at all. Clearly homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals in everything except sexual preference. Condemning someone for that seems entirely unchristian to me.
The bible itself has been re-written, translated, intentionally altered dozens of times over the 1800 or so years. There were originally many more books, but only four were chosen, for most likely political reasons.
There are passages in the bible that claim it is okay to allow fathers to KILL their children for disobeying. Citing chapters in the bible to prove a point is ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging, when many passages contain truly disgusting acts made by christians.
- sonofwill October 8, 2008 8:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why is it silly? I would like to know more about this!! How much do you actually know about the History of the Bible? I can tell you, though I am not a student of the Bible, that there are 66 books in the Bible. More than that if you include the Apocrypha from the 1611 version of the Bible.
It is no more silly for people to follow the principles of the Bible than it is for you or I to follow the teachings of any modern day writer. What does that mean? It means that you pick any given writer of today (not fictional). They have a following. That following is known for their stance on the teachings of that individual.
From what I do know of the Bible, there are allot of Customs dealt with in the Bible that were specific to the Jews. Those were Old Testament laws.
A person using the Bible to prove their point is no more ignorant, pointless, stupid, and socially damaging than someone picking up the latest Psychology book by the Latest writer and Whole heartedly following what that person teaches.
- justsomeguywithanopinion November 13, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree on that point... while I do not read the words of any man without discernment or engagement of my own mind and spirit, even the words of the Bible, it certainly does not strike me as ignorant to be able to study it a great deal and meditate on what I feel to be inspired words. Of course, in my opinion, any great work of literature is inspired.
- trellus December 13, 2008 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
It is the adherance to the belief system that you display in your comment that has gotten this country where it is today..And, I belief, the same process that brought about the destruction of multiple civilizations. The minimization of Scripture; the pompous belief that man has Truth, or at least has the capability of finding Truth; that we as people are born "good"; that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this world; that there is no afterlife, or consequences for our current behaviors or liefstyles--these are all consequences of modern thoughts/beliefs. Let me boil this down to one question: Would it be wrong for an adult male to sexually abuse a female infant? The child will have no recollection of the event(s), so no "harm" was technically done, and it fulfilled the deranged desires of the abuser. What would you do if this happened to YOUR daughter?
This absurd example is an extreme, used to highlight the fallacy and illogical nature of modern "logic."
God's reality and commands never lead to anything "disgusting." The Old Testament commands about 'putting to death' is hyperbole. For example, to my knowledge, there are no records showing that disrespectful children were put to death. I believe social commands such as this one were given to highlight the importance of and to decree the exact social hierarchy/structure (e.g. the role and respect given to parents; their influence and control over their children).
- Jefe November 13, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I just wanted to point out that an adult male sexually abusing a female infant would likely have physically damaging effects in all likelihood (depending on the nature of it, obviously), and quite possibly damage the child psychologically as well. We are very nascent in our understanding of what the mind remembers as an infant, but I remember a study of orphan babies who died from lack of touch... it hardly seems that it would make sense that the child merely required a certain touching of the body by a warm body, but rather that there is an emotional memory perhaps as well. In any case, the very fact of a *possibility* of damage immediately presents a moral problem apart from any need to have some external rule that tells me that this action would be ill-advised. :)
- trellus December 13, 2008 3:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Heterosexuality isn't sinful in marriage. Do you believe homosexual marriages are Scriptural?
- Screen Name January 27, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
between the sin and the sinner. One is condemned by the action the other is just a learned behaviour taught by satan himself.
- truehappiness September 30, 2009 10:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
from the Bible, or from scientific studies, showing that the devil is behind homosexuality .
- quantummechanik September 30, 2009 10:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Start with verse one of that chapter, where are temples mentioned? Maybe it's meaning is hidden in the hebrew, but in English it is not mentioned.
God is taking that chapter/time to address how we should not behave sexually, and then specifically mentions men laying with men... HELLO! If this was football, that would be a telegraphed pass...
- sfgiantsfanmike September 11, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
George Rawlinson, 1812-1902, in History of Phoenicia, written in 1889, describes Molech as a god worshiped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians. Here is Rawlinson's description of shrine prostitutes.
“At the head of the Pantheon stood a god and a goddess, Baal (Molech) and Ashtoreth... As Baal was the embodiment of the generative principle in nature, so was Ashtoreth of the receptive and productive principle. She was the great nature goddess, the Magna Mater, regent of the stars, queen of heaven, giver of life, and source of woman's fecundity...
[Canaanite religion was notable for] the prevalence of licentious orgies [involving shrine prostitutes] and of human sacrifice... Early rabbis describe the image of Moloch as a human figure with a bull's head and outstretched arms; and the account which they give is confirmed by what Diodorus relates of the Carthaginian Kronos...
“‘In the worship of Astarte [Ashtoreth, the ancient Canaanite fertility goddess]
prostitution of women, and of effeminate men [shrine prostitutes], played the same part that child murder did in the worship of Baal...
[Pagan worshipers believed] no service more acceptable could be rendered a deity than that of unchastity... Thus lust itself became a service of the gods...’
One fruit of this system was the extraordinary institution of the Galli. [Rawlinson equates the Galli [shrine prostitutes] with the KJV’s ‘sodomites’ - the ‘qedesha’ of the Hebrew text.]
The Galli were men, who made themselves as much like women as they could, and offered themselves for purposes of unnatural lust [unnatural in the sense of not procreative] to either sex [shrine prostitutes]. Their existence may be traced in Israel and Judah, [I Kings 14:24, 15:12] as well as in Syria and Phœnicia.
At great festivals, under the influence of strong excitement, amid the din of flutes and drums and wild songs, a number of the male devotees would snatch up swords or knives, which lay ready for the purpose, throw off their garments, and coming forward with a loud shout, proceed to castrate themselves openly...
They joined with the priests and the sacred women at festival times in frenzied dances and other wild orgies, shouting, and cutting themselves [much like the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:19, 28] on the arms, and submitting to be flogged one by another...”
(from George Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia, 1889, Chapter XI.)
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"According to the doing of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do, nor shall you walk in their ordinances."*
I see where you are coming from when it comes to context, yet you forgot verse 4: "You shall observe My judgements and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD (YHWH) your God."* This then lets us know we are not to walk in the ways of the world (Egypt, Canaan), but in His ways. That changes the context.
I understand and knew about those practices, that they were destructive and the reason that the Canaanites were being purged (vomited) out of their land as well as the reason Egypt has never returned to the prominence it once had as the strongest nation; however, God specifically tells us to obey Him over the world, and what is the world telling us is okay now a days? Engage in sexual practices that would make the Canaanites blush and homosexuality. There is nothing new under the sun.
*Verses are from New King James Version
- sfgiantsfanmike September 12, 2008 3:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Leviticus addressed a particular historical and religious situation. That is why Leviticus is addressed to the children of Israel living under the Law.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
1. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2
2. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 4:2
3. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 11:2
4. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 12:2
5. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 15:2
6. “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2
7. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 18:2
8. “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2
9. “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2
10. “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1
11. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 23:2
12. “Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2
13. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 25:2
14. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 27:2.
Remember Romans 6:14 -
"You are not under the law but under grace..."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Torah-Observance.html
- Rick Brentlinger September 12, 2008 7:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Okay, first I want to say that you're bringing up good points and I respect that. If I'm coming off the wrong way (especially looking back at the HELLO comment), I appologize. I get a little to emphatic at times when disscussing the scriptures.
Okay, so we're supposed to consider you is being addressed, so what about Romans 1? In verse 7 Paul states that he is addressing the saints, at least all the saints in Rome. Then in versus 18 to 32 he gives a long discourse on the "degeneration" of men who reject God. He calls men with men "shameful" and women leaving the natural use of the man. In this section he has nothing nice to say about the acts, and he is not addressing temples in the context but men in general.
It seems we may be destined to disagree, yet I feel it is worth while to hear your thoughts.
- sfgiantsfanmike September 12, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Before we can determine what scripture means for us today, we must understand what it meant for the people to whom it was originally given back then.
In plainer words, what scripture means today is limited by what it meant back then.
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
Whatever meaning we assign to Paul's words has to have been a probable understanding in the first century.
There are three areas which help us understand what Paul meant back then.
1. The historical context. First century Rome was an idolatrous culture with hundreds of temples to pagan gods and goddesses. One fertility goddess in particular was Cybele, known as the Protectress of Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
2. The religious context. The most prominent goddess figure in first century Rome was Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess. Five worship sites honored her in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans.
Roman coins bearing Cybele's likeness were inscribed with the words, Mater Deum, Mother of the gods.
Cybele was worshiped by castrated Galli priests who offered themselves sexually to male worshipers.
This is what Paul describes in Romans 1, citing the Old Testament experience of Jews who had rebelled against God and practiced fertility goddess worship.
3. The way Christians back then understood Paul's words in Romans 1.
Aristides, preaching before the Roman Emperor Hadrian, AD 126, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
Justin Martyr, preaching around AD 150, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
To read Romans 1 today and say scripture is condemning a committed, faithful, non-cultic lesbian or gay partnership is to give the text a new meaning which was unknown to the original readers.
And if it was unknown to the original readers, then that interpretation cannot be true because:
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
- Rick Brentlinger September 12, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
First off, let me say thank you for your thoughtful comments. I can see that you have really looked into this issue. I have read the article on Romans and Shine Prostitution and found it to be well-argued. Although, I am a little bothered by the use of the term anti-gay. I have read portions of Gagnon's book and he, like yourself, struggled with this issue. Early on in the book, he writes about his heartfelt struggle.
When someone argues that homosexual practice is a sin, this does not make them anti-homosexual, or anti-anything. I have desperately struggled with this issue personally and for the sake of others. I would never characterize myself as anti-gay. As I grow closer to Jesus, I feel more and more his love for all people well up inside of me. I wish the church as a whole weren't homophobic. I wish I didn't have to hear people around me, most of whom are Christians, use "gay" and other words I won't mention, as derogatory comments. (When I am feeling bold, I gently correct them.) Sometimes I don't want to call myself a Christian because this associates me with some of the people who have incited hate-mongering against homosexuals. My heart aches over this struggle because I have personally been affected by it and I have met many others who have felt these affects as well.
In the sending of his only son, Jesus Christ, God offered all people a saving relationship with himself. This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant: "I will bless you and make you a great nation and through you all people will be blessed". In this fulfillment, the people of God became all those who accepted, believed in, and followed the one whom God sent, Jesus Christ. In the Mosaic or Sinai covenant, Israel was required to obey the Mosaic law in order to receive salvation. But in Christ, the people of God, all people, Jew and Gentile, were freed from the law and now received salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ by faith.
So, to put it briefly, in Christ, God has removed the contractual obligation of the law and has offered a relationship. This never ceases to amaze me!! He wants to be in relationship with me!!
- Martin September 14, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
But what do we do in relationship? How do we treat our loved ones? People mess up in biblical interpretation when they either try to remove New Testament requirements of obedience or they once again put back on the "yoke of slavery" (the law) that they have been freed from. The fact is that true relationship demands love. Loving someone is wanting what's best for the person you love. What father or mother in their right minds, would want their child to do anything that would harm them?
I often here people quote out of context Matthew 7 about not judging others. People respond indignantly when anyone challenges their beliefs or their choice of lifestyles and simply say, "didn't Jesus say not to judge." Well actually, in Matthew 7:5, Jesus tells us to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. What he is condemning is hypocrisy, not judging. In other words, he is condemning being "judgmental," not judging your brother or sister in Christ. Read the passage. It says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." In other words, if you have taken the time to examine yourself and to deal with your own sin, you can then, and only then, more on to judging a brother or sister in Christ for their sin issues.
But this must be done in love? Speak the truth in love and so on and so forth . . .
- Martin September 14, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You said Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. This is a true statement. However, Scripture can have a different application then it did back then. You seem to be very concerned with the cultural context of cult prostitution in ancient Rome. And you seem to define "idolatry" in a very narrow sense. But Paul does not do this. Go on to Romans 1:28 when he begins to describe all manner of idolatry (which is simply worshipping anything besides creator God--today this could include worship of another person, worship of self, worship of money, worship of television, etc.):
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (ESV).
So, is Paul still only talking about cult prostitutes here? He seems to be talking about everyone. I am thinking about the times I have envied, or gossiped, or was disobedient to my parents. The question I am asking is: why would Paul have switched so rapidly from talking about a specific group of people to talking about everyone?
First and foremost, we must understand what Paul was trying to say with his words. What was the author intended meaning. This is primary. It is strongly related to how the original audience would have understood Paul's letter, but they are not the same thing. You seem to have given precedence to the cultural context of the passage over and above the context of the passage in the letter itself. Both are equally important. I would argue that placing a passage within the context of its surrounding passages, within the context of the letter itself, and within the context of the Bible as a whole is first and foremost in biblical interpretation. Cultural context is our aide along the way, but if our findings do not fit the context of the surrounding passages, then we need to go back to the drawing board and reassess what Paul was trying to say.
What do you think?
- Martin September 14, 2008 9:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Scripture as we know it - is only scripture because the whole book (all 66 chapters) flow together in a common theme. Therefore, topics that talk about man and woman and man and woman being the exclusive partnership that God blesses (marriage) are crucial. I'm sorry to see that you've not mentioned it(Mark 10:6-9) in your Seven Flawed Arguments. It may be that you cannot explain the matter, or that it doesn't flow with your interpretation of what you feel Scripture is saying.
Scripture is clear here, what God has joined let no man separate. Now you may rightfully say that the context in which Jesus elaborates is a context of a discussion of adultery. (see Mark 10:2-4)
"2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
However, it is within the context of speaking of adultery that we understand what God has put together. God has put together man and woman, this is the pure blessing of God.
I quote "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, we discover a polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19, on man with two women."
However this assertion is not correct. He makes that assertion in Mark 10:6-9. Also, just because a listing is in the Bible does not authenticate itself because it is listed, nor because it appears to be blessed. What do I mean?
God created man and woman to be the perfect union, and when we read about the union with the man and two women, it does not say that God blessed that union. We do know that this happened after sin entered into the world and was not the joining that God entitled for humans (see Mark 10:7). Therefore, just because you have a listed (correctly as it's mentioned in the Bible) a union between man and two women, doesn't mean it's authenticated by the Bible.
Your statement about (4) Matthew 19:3-12 is also quite incorrect. Why so?
First, Jesus doesn't make an exception for heterosexual marriage. Jesus only replies to his disciples assertion in verse 10 that it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn't say it is better not to marry a woman but instead a man. Actually, there are no contradictions to marriage between a man and a woman, only Jesus' response to his disciples. His response details why it's better not to marry.
Second, you are right about three classes of eunuchs, but understand this - that a eunuch is one who has sexual organs removed (castration). And note the three classes, one born without sexual organs v.12, and one made that way by men (or humans) and finally one who has renounced marriage or become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven(for ministry or the work of the clergy). There is no mention about exceptions for the case of homosexuality here, it appears to be your own interpretation.
- Lux October 25, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The exception to being joined in a union that is blessed by God (as referred to in Mark 10:5-9 or Matthew 19:4-6) is not an exception about the type of union but about remaining single. There are three classes of people who it is better for them not to marry (enter a union blessed by God). It simply means being single. There is no inclusion for those who are not inclined as you define - toward heterosexual marriage.
"11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Your point(7) about Jude 7 has been answered in another post by another post-er, strange flesh is a statement about relationships with angelic beings. So I won't elaborate about it.
Your arguments seem well thought out and I appreciate the depth to which you've gone to illustrate them. However, you've missed using Scripture as a whole, in it's appropriate context.
God is very clear about marriage, and I've made the due change in my life. I've listened to a lot of what society as a whole today deems as truth, but it doesn't mean that society is correct.
However, God is a good God, he has given anyone the opportunity to decide for himself/herself.
If I can choose no longer to be a homosexual, ask God for forgiveness of sin and am now entered in a marriage relationship - anyone can with God's guidance.
I've only tackled some of your arguments, since I've noted that other post-ers have rebutted your other arguments.
God bless.
- Lux October 25, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
All the Scriptures below remind us that we have a sinful nature, and because of this sinful nature we have inclinations of different kinds. (This is why Dr. Dobson mentioned that in some cases people do not choose to feel same sex attraction) To have an inclination does not mean that we cannot use our God given free will/choice to choose what is right; our ability to reason is not in vain, it is because God, our Creator, did not want us to be like robots; He tells us through the Scriptures what is pure, noble and right, but it is up to us what we choose, or how we want to interpret His word to fit our sinful natures and try to silence our consciences. No matter how many want to justify sin, in the end, sin is sin, and each one will receive what is due according to his/her deeds.
*Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. Romans 8:5
*Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:8
*Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. Romans 8:12
*For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:13
*Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. EVEN THEIR WOMEN EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATIONS FOR UNNATURAL ONES. IN THE SAME WAY MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION. ROMANS 1:24-27
*“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
*But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
- reinahoward September 25, 2008 1:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Rick,
Thank you for your comments, which are quite well thought out. I have to say that even though they are well thought out, I disagree with them. I've found that your arguments ignore a common theme in scripture. I've also noted that you've not mentioned key passages about sexual relationships and marriage in their appropriate context. But before doing so, let me be specific about my views.
Before I say anything else, I'd like to say that I am a former homosexual. I believe that the Bible dictates sin as sin, but does not condemn the person. What do I mean? John 3:16 writes that God loved the world (humans) and sent his son to die. God doesn't say that sin is acceptable, but provides the solution for it. God loves every person, and wants the best for them. In the same way whether a person is gay or not should not have a bearing on how God loves them, this according to scripture. However, at the same time, Scripture is crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin, and all sin needs to be dealt with, just as I have dealt with mine(1 John 1:8-10).
In your Seven Flawed Arguments you have not mentioned Jesus sayings in their correct form: (Mark 10:6-9 NIV)
- Lux October 25, 2008 8:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mathew 19:
4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Here Jesus establishes the obligation for a man to marry and be faithful to one wife.
9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
This reaffirms the requirement of monogamy.
10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
The disciples find this rule difficult to accept.
11: But he said unto them, All (men) cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Jesus gives them an option. In this option he says that there are those that cannot accept this rule (to marry a woman and be monogamous). It is important to note here that he does not say “will not”, “would rather not”, “chose not to”, but he said “cannot”. This would imply that he was referring to people incapable (mentally, physically, or both) from living by the rules of men.
12A (first category): For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:
I suspect this means all those incapable of consummating a relationship with a woman for whatever reason. (hermaphrodite or gay).
12B (second category): and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:
We pretty well all agree that these are actual eunuchs.
12C (third category): and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
The church insists that these are simply celibate priests.
Logically neither of the first two groups would have any interest in women, so they would by their very nature be celibate.
The problem is that there is nothing said or done up to the moment that Christ said this that would indicate that celibacy was a requirement or even a virtue in priests. In fact, all indications are that it was disallowed. How do you “make yourself a Eunuch”? To be a eunuch 2000 years ago meant more than simple celibacy.
What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally. Well once again lets look at verse:
5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
No doubt about it, if you were capable of consummating a relationship with a woman, you were required to be married. More importantly, if you were a man you were required to be married. To declare yourself a eunuch was to declare yourself uninterested in women, a eunuch, a non man. This was understood readily 2000 years ago, but modern society has a hard time grasping it.
Having said this there were eunuchs that were allowed into the temple (natural eunuchs who were anatomically correct).
If Jesus was not married he was a eunuch by his own definition. He was anatomically correct because he regularly entered the temple. He had to be a natural eunuch (or married, one or the other).
Only by declaring themselves eunuchs were they exempt from the requirement of marriage. In fact, they were exempt from all rules pertaining only to “men”. The reason was that they were not considered to be “men”. Rules quoted about man being with man did not apply to eunuchs because eunuchs were not considered to be men. The sin was not being gay, but pretending to be men while engaging in gay behavior.
It is most likely that the natural eunuch was the first category:
12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:
and likely included homosexuals.
This group:
12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
If Jesus was not married, then he was a eunuch. If his genitalia was mutilated he could not enter the temple. If the church’s definition of “born that way" was hermaphrodites, then Jesus could not be either “born that way” or “made that way”. This only leaves “made themselves eunuchs” as an option for Jesus. “Made themselves eunuchs” can only mean one of two things---actually had themselves castrated, or had no interest in women. Either way, in Jesus time, it was a renunciation of manhood at the least.
In that the church has painted him as celibate, they have painted themselves into a corner.
It all ends with:
12D: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Translate---He that can be married should do so, and he who is a eunuch should accept that. You are what you are.
- trutthseeker November 15, 2008 2:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"Your statements are mutually exclusive. You cannot logically claim that our modern concept of heterosexual is a recent development and then argue that this "recent development" is exclusively defined in the Bible (2000 to 3400 years ago) as "between a man and a woman" (heterosexuality)."
These statements are not mutually exclusive. You have changed contexts and set up a 'straw man' to knock down. In western culture, the concept of hetero and homosexuality is quite a recent development. However, the context of this claim is that the -->concept
Furthermore, the use of the 'definition of heterosexuality', as used by the exodus poster, was used to show that heterosexuality is defined in the bible and that all other sex acts are forbidden. I do not see you denying this.
- visavismeyou October 9, 2009 11:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is unclear to me your intentions for citing the love between Jonathan and David. I've read these interactions many times in many translations and I've yet to see anything that displays a committed homosexual relationship. I can see how it is easily misunderstood. Differentiating between philia and eros is critical. I see philia quite readily throughout the bible betwee two men or two women , I have yet to see eros between two men celebrated in the bible.
- visavismeyou October 9, 2009 11:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is Homosexuality a Sin?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's a sin only if you define it as one
I'm sorry that Rick Brentlinger has chosen to reject an important aspect of his own humanity (his sexual orientation) because of what it says in a dusty old book.
There is no way to argue this point rationally, because "sin" is a completely non-objective term based on no evidence whatsoever except what it says in the bible. If you believe that the bible is god's literal word (also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence) then nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. That's the nature of faith; that's its immune from reason, exists in its own isolated world, and cannot be touched by rational debate or discussion.
But if the bible is the literal work of god, I wonder what believers think about the two examples below. There are many others. Should we take them literally?
Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Exodus 22:3
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
- SidAirfoil
September 8, 2008 8:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not isolated
You're not precise when you say sin is isolated from a rational world. Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions. If you're interested you can check out that book. Also your quotes are out of the context (bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically). If you analize New Testament the circumstance may continue as a sin, but Jesus payed for those sins.
- oveja September 10, 2008 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Transcendent" moral law
I'm not sure what you mean by "Authors like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" have argued how there is a moral law that trascends religions". To me religious moral laws already inappropriately "transcend" the secular human realm. I haven't read the book you mention, but what can possibly transcend the law of god as interpreted by those charged to do so?
In any case, my major concern is that the source of religious moral laws (in this case, the law against homosexuality) is god and not man. Proper moral law must be based on the nature of humans, not on the nature of god. "Do what god says" is not a moral law, because it does not ask what behaviors are good or bad for people AS people. It simplistically says that being good consists of obeying the rules (as defined by the bible). By this improper "moral law" homosexuality is a sin because, as I said, it violates the arbitrary law set down in a dusty old book.
In contrast "Live and let live" (for example) IS a proper moral law because it respects the nature of humans as individual moral beings with independent minds who live and relate to one another through mutual recognition, respect, and consent. By this proper moral law homosexuality is NOT a "sin" because it does not violate the rights or fundamental humanity of anyone else.
You also say the "...bible has to be analised literally, symbolically and historically". This is a contradiction. It can be taken literally or NOT literally. It either IS the literal word of god, or its open to interpretation. If it IS the literal word of god, then you cannot re-interpret any part of it to your liking. And if its NOT the literal word of god, then it is not the authoritative law for human behavior or anything else, for that matter. It is hypocrisy to take parts of the bible literally while "interpreting" other parts. And once you "interpret" it, either symbolically or historically or in any other way, you have put your judgement (or the judgement of other humans) above the word of god.
- SidAirfoil
September 11, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who was God talking to all these years?
I really want to know what "Law" was passed down since the 10 Commandments? I will not dispute Moses account, but there were no other witnesses. Not a single commandment about homosexuals.
Seems a sin of omission on Gods part? Even the churches and religious organizations, dispute any contemporary claims for "hearing" from God.
Those people you claim are "charged" to do so, are none the less just other people. They are all there because they choose to be. No more than you or me to interpret anything. God has also seen fit not to drop a list of people from heaven, charging anyone to do anything.
Like any corporation, the religious organizations all get some good people and some bad people. Like any good employee they also protect their jobs. Where you get this fantasy about God and people is well beyond any sane comprehension. If it werwe a bad thing, God would not have allowed animals to "suffer" the same malady.
I once knew a farmer. He had a prize bull that was a flaming homosexual. They had to "milk" the bull to impregnate the cows. It isn't all that uncommon on the farm. Why should it be so in the cities?
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 1:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Law of Moses and the dignity of man
Tomcat2200,
The 10 commandments you reference are actually a part of the Hebrew Torah, meaning Law that was give to Moses from God. The 10 commandments are as significant part of the Mosaic Law. Two clear prohibitions against homosexuality are made by God through Moses in the Law.
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22, NIV)
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
You compare the act of animals to the acts of humans. Animals indulges in all kinds of beastly behavior but to compare this to human homosexuality is actually out of place. For one humans are created above animals and we know right from wrong in a general sense which animals cannot. Furthermore animals have know self identity and are entirely incapable of rational thought, a bull cannot think itself homosexual anymore then it can think itself a bull, it just is a bull. Animals have instincts that they act on and when taken out of nature, eg. a farm, they are more inclined to all kinds of more unnatural behaviors including apparently homosexual acts.
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not really.
Animals are indeed capable of rational thought, and tons of animals have self idenity complexes... where are you getting your info ?
Leviticus is Old Testement, ntm Lev is a set of rules for Hebrew Males... Are you Hebrew?
- zman676
April 16, 2009 12:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Beg to differ.
Lets first start with a working and shared definintion of "rational."
Rational: "Having or exercising the ability to reason. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." (American Heritage Dictionary)
You ask where I am getting my info; where are you getting yours? There is some controversy as to whether animals are capable of rational throught, however, the vast majority of people including scientists do accept an animal as a rational creature. For example, recently there was a women in CA who had a pet chimp. Without warning and without rational basis the chimp went "ape" on her girl friend and almost killed her. Professionals in the field, including zoologists, vets, other biologits etc. often reference that these types of things happen because they are "wild animals." To expect rational behavior from an animal is absurd.
Furthermore, from a Biblical point of view, regardless of how literaly one interpreates the creation accounts there is a clear distinction between man and the animals. Namely they alone were made in the image and likeness of God, recieved from a him a rational that is in likeness to him (which animals do not) and were given dominion over the earth (including the animal kingdomm).
Philosophically we can know that animals are not capable of considering sylogistic reasoning, understand logic. A dog does not think about where it would go to college or what it wants to do with its life. The earliest philosophers and through the present age have noticed a distinction from animals and humankind.
To argue that because an animal does something means it is ok for humans is ludicrist. Animals eat there own kind, commit acts of aggression including murder and many other atrocious behavior if we tried to understand this rationaly. However, we know that they are animals and they do that kind of thing based on instict and conditioning.
Yes Leviticus is Old Testements. Leviticus is not just a rule book for Hebrew males it was given to the whole people of Israel as with the rest of the Torah. No I am not ethnically Hebrew alhtough I do consider myself a "child of Abraham" through the promise, i.e. by faith .
Shalom,
Spencer
- Periannath April 16, 2009 5:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Christ... fully reveals man to himself"
The late Pope John Paul II was noted for quoting often the phrase "Christ...fully reveals man to himself." from "Gaudium et Spes." In the Christian tradition God and his commands are not "up there" far away in some Platonic other but right here, now in the present among us. God came to Abram, his glory dwelt on Mt. Sinai with Moses, John the Baptist preached "the Kingdom of God is at hand," Jesus, "it is among us" and Jesus the Christ himself is the incarnation of God. God's Word came present not "up there" but in time, in history, in the lives and languages of a real culture of and society amongst real individuals.
Universal moral law is only true in so much as it is indeed universal and based in the common good. Not the good of an individual or a group but as it is the good for all. In order for this to be so it must somehow exist ontologically in its own right, objectively and not in the will of man for the will of man is not only corrupt but subjective. In this case the only moral law that can actually be true and universal is that law which is given from God. Any other attempt for man to construct there own law, there own morals, there own understanding of right and wrong, good and evil is in fact from the evil one. To do so would nuance the falsity that we are god, or anyway like God. (see Genesis 3). Rather God calls us into relationship with him not only because it is the good for us to do but because it is the purpose for which we are created. God not only calls us to himself as an action of doing but as an action of being because it is who we are, after all God calls us into being.
How is it reconciled then, that we as humans need a morality that is actually attainable that isn't beyond our reach that is as you said "for people." God knows that his law is to high for people to achieve (see Romans 7). This is precisely why he came not as other but as man and in doing so made the way for man to experience not only holiness and righteousness (as accorded by his law) but true peace with God and right relationship with him. Jesus' humanity is evidence that it is possible and he is the way to our eternal Father, our divine Creator. Jesus affords the way we must choose weather one will take that, accept God's offer of freedom and redemption or continue to neglect him and his holiness by living in sin. Societies likewise, can compromise the truth and go on living "as every man sees fit" with the illusion of justice by "living and letting live." But dies this "live and let live" really provide true justice? What about the injustice of psychological distress within a man, is this accounted for? Not because "live and let live" only accounts for interpersonal relationship not the inner justice of man. Or how about acts of "so called freedom" that actually bring further bondage? Are they ok if only consent is given? Prostitution, fornication, drunkenness, consumerism? All of these things go on under the guise of false justice, ie. live and let live, but in reality they continue to demean the integrity and intrinsic value of the human person. The justice based in the reality that all men are created equal is the justice of God for he has endowed men with such unalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each human person, all men, all women, those who believe they are homosexual and those who do not, those born, those unborn, those dying they are all worth so much to God that he he gave his only begotten son to die that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting, full, life. Christ speaks the freeing word, the word of liberty over all those who call on his name as they become who they truly are before sin and bondage and oppression came to foul our fallen race. Jesus saves. Jesus calls us to our original purpose, he is the fulfillment of our happiness. True morality and justice accounts to the full truth of the human being and human experiance accroding to him who knows all things and all things about us, according to him who walked among us and made a way for real people, and who calls us into realtionship with him and gives us to the power to live holy, lives of right action and right being by putting His Spirit in those who believe in him. This Spirit is the Lord the giver of life, who reigns with the Father and the Son, One God overall, for all, in love with all.
including you friend,
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that . . .
SidAirfoil,
If you REALLY believe the bible is "God's Word" not man's and as you say "In any case, my major concern is that the source of religious moral laws (in this case, the law against homosexuality ) is god and not man",
then I challenge you to explore all of the scripture that I have assembled at http://WhatkindofGod.org/ and swear on the bible that you believe all of the horrible statements attributed to "God" in the bible! including for example:
"No one born of a forbidden marriage (no "bastard") nor any offspring from such a marriage may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."
If Deuteronomy 23:2 is taken seriously (which Conservatives must do, if they take the scriptures as seriously as they claim) , then these are the inevitable consequences :
Not only are all the "bastard" children of the faithful to be unjustly punished (for something they had no power over), but all of the following as well:
all of their children, (2nd generation)
their grand-children, (3rd generation)
their great-grand-children, (4th generation)
their great-great-grand-children, (5th generation)
their great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children,
their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as well,
(which could number into the hundreds if not thousands of offspring).
This also has serious ramifications going BACKWARDS, i.e. ,
Can you be absolutely sure that you yourself aren't a bastard?
How can you be sure that neither of your two parents was?
What about your 4 grand-parents?
What about your 8 great-grand-parents?
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
- Rayosun
September 10, 2009 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
I agree with SidAirfoil, that the bible is filled with immoral acts that are no longer considered immoral. They were made by man and they have been changed by man.
But the passages of the Bible that deserve the most question include Genesis itself, within the chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah. When two male angels come to Lot's house the night before God is to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot protects them from the (homosexual male) crowd by what moral act? By offering up his two virgin daughters so that the crowd will leave his honored guests alone.
And if that were not enough morality with which we would ALL DISAGREE, and see as reprehensible child abandonment or worse...the chapter ends with both of Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they can have incestuous sex with him.
So our source of morality has homosexuality as sinful, but child endangerment as virtuous, and incest as perfectly okay.
The Bible is a very weak source of morality.
What else do you have to show that homosexuality is "immoral?"
What harm is it to "moral"people, if otherwise moral homosexuals do their own thing in private?
- bmkmd
October 4, 2008 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3
You should take them literally, because that's how it used to be back then, now those laws don't apply because of Jesus' death on the cross . Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 22:3 talks about laws from the old testament. Because of Jesus' death on the cross, we can say that these laws don't have an effect on us.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 9:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh?
I'm confused.
Jesus died for our sins, so now adultery and theft aren't sins anymore?
Or if they are still sins, they require less severe punishment today than in the past because Jesus paid-it-forward for us?
Either I'm missing an important theological point, or this is just a rationalization to reject the literal word of god (the bible) in favor of modern, humanistic moral standards.
- SidAirfoil
September 11, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not really
It's not saying they aren't since anymore, but sin is not dealt in the same way as in the old testament. This doesn't mean that the condition of sin is lightened, it is the same, but Jesus sacrifice plays a huge role when it comes to forgiveness.
Now because of Jesus we can be saved, we are able to be forgiven and called righteous as long as we repent from our sins (meaning turning away from our sinful nature) and chose to live for Jesus.
Isaiah 53 talks about Jesus death on the cross. These are just parts of it.
5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the Lord laid on him
the sins of us all.
This part talks about How He became an offering for sin on the cross.
10 But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
he will be satisfied.
And because of his experience,
my righteous servant will make it possible
for many to be counted righteous,
for he will bear all their sins.
Notice how it talks about many because not everyone will turn to Jesus for salvation.
So just to make sure I answer your questions
1) Adultery, theft as well as homosexuality and other sins are still sins. And I believe they aren't any less of sins.
2) Basically the there is judgement, however Jesus did pay for our sins so repentance plays a huge role. He can take away judgement from us if we turn away from our ways and surrender to Him.
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Christians NOT under law - Romans 6:14
The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God.
That is not a license to sin. It simply acknowledges that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."
To get saved and to go to heaven, we need the righteousness of Christ.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time, HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS..." - Romans 3:25
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and sanctification, and redemption." - I Corinthians 1:30
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Christians-Under-Law.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 11, 2008 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm getting it, but still don't like it
Thanks for the reply, Rick.
You said "The idea is that Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled all the demands of the Law, therefore we are not required to keep the Law ourselves to be right with God."
In other words, Jesus died not only so that we could be forgiven for all the sins committed BEFORE he died, but also so that we had a path to be forgiven for the one's committed AFTER his death (i.e. today). Right?
But forgiveness still requires not only that we repent, but also that we accept Jesus as the only path to penitence. And that's the part I don't like. It's off the current topic, but to me forgiveness has to come only from the person I've wronged, and not from Jesus or god, or any other supernatural being. That's because my secular morality is based on respect for HUMANS, not respect for god. To me it's offensive that hurting another person is considered "sinful" because it violates the law of god, rather than because it violates of rights of a person. It's offensive that repentant murderers ask for god's forgiveness, rather than the forgiveness of their victims and their families, and find peace through god without regard to the person they've killed.
But all this is for another discussion. Since homosexuality hurts no PERSON, it is not immoral, although I acknowledge that it is "sinful" according to your arbitrary religious dogma.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 14, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I believe homosexuality is NOT a sin.
Sid-
You make a very good point about forgiveness being multi-faceted.
Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership.
As human beings, we need forgiveness from God - that forgiveness is available because Jesus' blood paid our sin debt (past, present and future sins) and because Jesus' physical resurrection demonstrated that God the Father has accepted Jesus' payment for our sins.
But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness.
I agree with you that homosexuality in general hurts no PERSON.
Rick
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Moses-Law.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 14, 2008 3:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Being gay vs. acting gay
Rick said "But your point is absolutely valid, that we should also seek forgiveness for wronging someone and they should seek forgiveness for wronging us. That is the human side of forgiveness."
I'm glad to hear that. It just seems to me that the forgiveness of one's victim much too often takes a distant back seat to the forgiveness of god. And that is consistent with my morality having a different source (respect for human rights) than religious morality (obedience to god's law).
Also you said "Just to be clear, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be homosexual or lesbian. Further, I do NOT believe it is a sin to be in a committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnership. "
I realize that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I think you're on the right side of this debate (overall!).
But I do have a point to make and a question to ask you or anyone else who is reading this. I have met many Christians who also say that they do not think BEING gay is a sin, only that ACTING gay is a sin. This presumably acknowledges (correctly) that sexual orientation is NOT a choice people make. You're either gay or you're straight. And just as I did not choose to be straight, homosexuals don't choose to be gay. Sexual orientation is simply one aspect of yourself that you discover as you mature. This is another reason why I don't believe that BEING gay is immoral. Where there is no choice morality does not attach. Being gay (or straight) is neither moral not immoral. Sexual orientation, like height or hair color, is simply not a moral issue.
This being said, regardless of your orientation, whom you have sex with and what kind of sex you have ARE choices that we make. And so my question is; Is it reasonable for a Christian to accept that a person IS homosexual, while condemning them for ACTING in a homosexual fashion? Obviously I don't think it is reasonable. But I'd like to hear from anyone who does, since this is not an uncommon attitude in my experience.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 16, 2008 8:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who's Word?
Neither God or Jesus wrote the Bible.
- JNGII
September 17, 2008 8:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible claims to be God's word
The Bible claims to be the word of God. Thousands of times we read, "Thus saith the LORD" or "The word of the LORD came unto him, saying..."
Exodus 31:18 and 32:15-16, Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:22, 9:10-11 are crystal clear that God did indeed write some of the Bible - the Ten Commandments - with His own finger, with His own hand.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 18, 2008 10:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Symantics
According to the bible, God wrote the commandments on stone tablets with his own hand yet the bible was printed on paper. The Ten Commandments were written thousands of years before the bible was written. That answers that question.
Many people believe the bible should be taken literally. Please then explain the following:
In Numbers 31:1-18, God commands Moses to kill all the adult male Midianites and kidnap all the women and children. The the Lord commanded Moses to kill all the male children and kill all the non-virgin females. Moses then said that the remaining female children could be taken as sexual slaves.
And people think Islam is a religion of violence? So, explain this passage but here is the catch: you cannot say every word in the bible must be taken literally but then write off passages like this as "parables" meant to teach us some other lesson.
I will never try to tell someone that there is or isn't a God or tell them what to believe, that is a personal choice and I respect those who make that choice. But why not respect others for making their own choices? When one sect of Christianity tells me that members of other Christian sects cannot enter heaven, it is clear that many Christians do not espouse the principles of their own faith. When one sees a person treat their fellow humans like dirt six days a week but go to church on Sunday and have a "What Would Jesus Do" license plate frame, I have nothing but disgust.
And do not forget that the text of the ten commandments are also found, almost word for word, in the Qur'an. ("or come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful" 017:032)
And further more, the first five books of the old testament of the bible is also known as the Torrah from Judaism, written well before the bible.
I think like Sid, I treat people as a result of human rights, not because of God's promise of heaven because the wrong motivation is a factor. If you are good to people only so you can go to heaven then you really are doing it for you, not your fellow human being.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply
both of those verses are in the Old Testament... Jesus came and gave His life for us so that we no longer have to live under the old law. Now we live by Faith in Christ Jesus.
Each one of us will give account to Jesus Christ for how we lived our life. I sure want to make sure that I am on the right side so I read his word to see how HE wants me to live.
- crash
September 15, 2008 7:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What did Jesus say?
Crash makes an interesting point.
What did Jesus say about all of this?
Many non-gay and gay people insist Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality. I believe Jesus did address the gay issue when He pointed out in Matthew 19:3-12 that all men cannot receive His teaching about Adam and Eve style marriage.
Jesus taught that "born eunuchs" were a separate group, distinct from eunuchs who had been castrated and distinct from eunuchs who voluntarily abstained from Adam and Eve style marriage in order to serve God without distraction.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
Because Jesus intentionally differentiated between born eunuchs and metaphysical eunuchs who voluntarily decide not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage, it makes sense to conclude that born eunuchs are:
a. not required to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage (since Jesus intentionally opts them out)
b. not required to abstain from marrying an orientation compatible partner (since Jesus intentionally differentiates them from metaphysical eunuchs who make a personal decision not to participate in Adam and Eve style marriage).
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 16, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's going on with the New Testament
Who, exactly, goes to heaven and who, exactly, goes to hell? There's a bunch of lists. Does being a Christian trump those lists, and if so, why would anyone even talk about the lists?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You tell me
According to the Christians I grew up around (Southern Baptists), yes, being a "born-again" Christian trumps all. But since I am an atheist, I consider such debates about equal to debating which color of unicorns is more "fair".
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm Jewish
I have no earthly understanding as to why they act as they do. It's hard enough just figuring us out.
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 1:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's even worse
I was at a "revival" where the guest speaker was what they called a "completed Jew"; he was a Jew who had become a "born-again Christian". The part that stuck with me was this man sobbing from the pulpit because of his parents. He said that they had loved each other dearly in life, but since they had died without being "saved", they were now both burning in Hell and hated one another (there being no love in Hell). I was almost made sick by this. Still am.
- KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Southern Baptists
No wonder you a atheist I was once a atheist and a southern baptist.They both are about equal in my book.They both deny the teachings in the bible .
- countryboy
June 9, 2009 6:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible is abominable
The Bible is fine with slavery. It only says how much you are allowed to beat your slaves; not that slavery is wrong, or that maybe your shouldn't beat them at all. It even says it is OK to sell your daughter into slavery. I'm not aware of any sect of Christians who don't deny that particular teaching. It also demands that a virgin marry her rapist in order to be made pure. Yes, I will continue to deny the Bible and its "teachings". I don't get my sense of morality from bronze-age shepherds who thought genocide, slavery, and treating women as property was peachy. http://www.godisimaginary.com /
- KentMcManigal June 9, 2009 7:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hay quantummechanik
There's a bunch of list does being a christisn trumpm those list.
What list are yiu talking about?I for you would love to set any one straght on this.
- countryboy
June 8, 2009 10:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The hell lists
The lists of people who don't get into heaven. Whisperers, Back-Biters, Effeminate, etc.
- quantummechanik
June 9, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lets some this up
Jesus saying on these two commandment hang all the law and the prophets
Matthew 23-37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOD with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind
Matthew 23-38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 23-39 And the second is love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matyhew 23-40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You see this is what a real christian is all about.Love,true love peace with god and others,
If you follow these 2 commandments you wont be a whisperer,back-biter etc.
And if we slip we are forgiven though the Blood of christ
- countryboy
June 9, 2009 6:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why do you care?
Why does anyone care that much about what goes on in someone else's bedroom? Is it hurting your life? No. If homosecuality is a sin, then let God deal with it. Your job as a human is to love thy neighbor and notice that there are no disclaimers in that passage.
The other thing is that, and I don't care who you are, what is considered 'moral' in the bedroom is not something you want to start judging because odds are near 100% what ever you are doing, even with your wife, is considered immoral by someone else.
For example, oral sex is illegal and immoral in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
In fact, the bible is very clear that sex should only be performed for procreation and I am 100% sure that these morality police are not living up to that part of the bible.
It astounds me how the far right of religon can throw out bible quotes to support thier opinions yet choose to overlook other passages.
Hey Rick, try reading the whole bible some time.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 10:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apologies to Rick
My last sentence was meant towards the other side of this argument, not you.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 11:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
Pliskin (Snake?),
Of course you're right that sex is a personal matter that is no one else's concern because it harms no one else. "Live and let live" is a pretty good basis for morality, in my view, precisely because its basis is respect for other humans,and not obedience to god's law. Clearly theists don't see it that way. To them "good" is doing what god says, "evil" is not doing what god says. How an act affects (or doesn't affect) other people is irrelevant to them. "Live and let live" is NOT the basis of religionist morality.
I believe that most people choose religionist morality 1) because it requires less thought, responsibility and effort to do what your told than it does to decide right and wrong for yourself, and to live with the consequences, and 2) because it can be used to justify personal prejudices (i.e. homophobia) and give them divine support. Hence people cite bible passages that support their views, while ignoring (or "interpreting" others that don't. Often, people don't form beliefs because of what the bible says, they interpret the bible to support their preconceived beliefs. And the bible lends itself well to this kind of rationalization by being vague and downright self-contradictory on most issues.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 3, 2008 7:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Snake
Ha! You have figured out my cheesy 70's movie nickname. What a great post and I agree with you 110% but I am going to add a couple of things. Hypothetically speaking, what if homosexuality IS evil? So what? I don't believe that myself but if you do, how does it really affect you? (not you Sid)
My personal opinion is that so many things like this, both religious in nature and not, is really fueled by fear of the unknown and a lack of confidence.
For example, if you are strong in your Christian faith, what do you have to lose by gaining a better understating of Islam or Buddhism? I have traveled extensively all over the world and with each journey, I gain a greater understanding of the world and it's people but traveling abroad only enhances my love for my country. It doesn't make me want to move there.
I believe there is fear behind homophobia for most people. If you are secure in who you are, what does it matter?
Fear may be the most crippling disease in the world: fear of homosexuals, fear of other cultures, fear of other races, fear of other religions and most of all, fear of change. Fear robs people of the most wonderful parts of the human experience.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Live and let live?
Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. It is the opposite of respect, sympathy and solidarity.
But on the question of gay sex. It is real simple, if you are a religious person, most likely your religion speaks against sin and cherry picking passages from ancient texts won't change that.
Since I am non religious and don't have to worry about "sins" I can base my moral decisions on the questions and values I have about respect, sympathy and solidarity. In that sense, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals they feel love, attraction, loneliness, despair of rejection and all the other things that come with passion and love, whether good or bad.
Do what your heart tells you to do in questions of love; did no one learn anything from Shakespeare?
- mangueken
November 22, 2008 4:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Live and Let Live
Mangueken,
I'm glad we agree on the non-sinfulness of homosexuality.
But you also said "Live and let live is hardly a good basis for morality. It pops up in the people who walk by and ignore one person physically hurting another person. ".
I disagree. "Live and Let Live" does not preclude stopping one person from hurting another. There is no moral law that says one must tolerate gross immorality. "Live and Let Live" is a universal principle, not just my personal one. It applies not just to myself, but to other as well. When I accept it as my principle, I acknowledge that EVERYONE has the right to "Live", as well as the responsibility to "Let Live". If someone harms another without justification, then they violate the social contract and may be stopped/punished.
Granted, on an individual level, one is not morally REQUIRED to intervene (If one fears for one's own safety, for example), but one is morally PERMITTED to do so. But on a social level, a civil society is both permitted and required to intervene. It is for this reason that invading Iraq was a moral thing to do (although not handled particularly well). But that's another topic.
I reiterate. If everyone swore the following oath, we would need no other moral law. "Everyone has the right to do whatever they want." This oath demands that my rights be respected, and also demands that I respect the same rights of others. In a free society nothing else is necessary. To call homosexuality a sin, and to try and stop it, violates this simple idea.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 24, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Judgement
The law of the old testament is not valid anymore. No longer is it to be part of society to kill homosexuals, kill adulterers, kill children for dishonoring parents. We have found that Libery best reflects the life given to us, to live in that. Judgement is for observing life to make decisions on survival, pleasure, happiness. Each is to make these decisions upon the reflection of his own concience, and living true to that.
Thank you for your thoughts.
- Andante931
November 19, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Rationalistic assumption
You assume several things in your post. You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not, that rational truth is higher then spiritual or religious truth and thus that those who believe that Bible is the literal word of God are then irrational with the implications that such people are wrong and absurd. I would ask you why is so called rational truth higher then religious truth? How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective? What objective exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? I don't bring up these questions to spite you, and though I may be coming off sarcastic I want to make it clearly known that I am not I am just trying to respond to your argument.
Peace,
Spencer
- Periannath December 29, 2008 10:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rationalism vs. religionism
Periannath said:
"You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not..."
Yes I do. Rational truth, as you call it, is based on sensory-perceptual evidence that can be observed, analyzed, discussed, and debated. Those are things that the human mind is excellent at doing. Rational moral truth is based on the observation that people are all basically the same, that they have the same fundamental physical, psychological, and spiritual needs (by "spiritual" I do NOT mean, religious or supernatural. I merely mean needs that are not physical). "A rational "Live-and-Let-Live" morality is based on the observation that people thrive when left to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else. Hence homosexuality is NOT immoral. These observations can be made by anyone, and are clearly demonstrable whether we consider them on an individual level or on a societal level.
In contrast, Religious truth is based on faith (i.e. belief WITHOUT evidence). I do think that people who believe that the bible is the literal word of god ARE irrational (at least in that one aspect of their lives). One can only believe the literalness of the bible by ignoring the immense body of historical and scientific evidence that utterly contradicts that assertion. It's not enough to believe something very strongly. Your belief must be plausible, supported by the evidence, and not explicable by a simpler, more plausible explanation. I would think that the existence of so many faiths in the world each claiming mutually contradictory moralities would give pause to theists who think that their particular moral biases are the "right" ones. Do you think you were just lucky to be born into a Christian society while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., were unluckily born into the "wrong" ones?
You ask "How is rational truth objective when it is the product of human minds, which tend to be very subjective?" Well, how is religious truth objective when it is ALSO the product of the human mind? The fact that you deny that your beliefs are the product of human minds doesn't change the fact that they are. The bible was written, rewritten, altered, edited, interpreted, reinterpreted by PEOPLE. How many different versions of the Christian bible exist today? Why were some gospels removed by the Council of Nicea? What about the 80% of the human race that don't believe in the new testament? And I haven't even begun to list the myriad scientific proofs against literalism. The only way you can believe in the literalness of the bible in the face overwhelming evidence that it's not literally true is if you are willfully blind. And I believe that willful blindness is irrational and dangerous. Men of faith flew planes into skyscrapers on 9/11. Faith scares me.
Lastly you ask "What objective [evidence] exists to show that the Bible is not God's word? " I just barely started to list the evidence above. There is much more. But it doesn't matter. You are the one making the claim that the bible is literally true. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Given the thousands of different creation myths, moral systems and "bibles" that have existed since the beginning of the human race, it is incumbent upon you to prove that yours is fact while all others are/were fiction. Of course, since your beliefs are faith-based not evidence-based, I'm not sure why you would even want to "prove" the validity of yours by presenting evidence. Proving it with objective evidence, even if you could do so, would turn your faith into science.
Sorry to be so wordy. But I'm as passionate about my beliefs as I assume you are about yours.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
December 29, 2008 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Begging the Question
"'You assume that rational truth is objective, that spiritual truth is not...' Yes I do."
You never came to respond to my critique; your concept that rational truth is objective and spiritual-religious truth is not and that thus rational truth is more correct is an assumption. You even concur that it is subjective but respond not by defending its objectivity but continuing to reinforce the idea of the apparent subjectivity of spiritual truth. In this case, for the purposes of argument, it can be said that both rational and spiritual truth are subjective and there is not basis to argue that rational truth is higher or more true because it also falls to the realm of subjectivity.
You cannot argue...
1.) Rational objective and spiritual truth is subjective
2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
when you concur that rational truth is not objective, the logic fails.
Essentially when you answer "Yes I do" assume, you are begging the question. You are assuming the thing to which you are trying to prove.
Furthermore, you assume that human beings are excellent rational beings. A capacity for rationality does not guarantee rational excellency. In reality most people are irrational and base choices off of not what one would could call rational and logical reasoning but on emotive persuasions and fanciful constructions that care less with the matter of fact, as is, and more with the matter of desire, what is wanted from their self. The idea then, that people are primarily rational is also unfounded.
Following, leaving morality to the tending of human rational thought alone is foolish. It lacks good sense and sound judgment. It is of no coincidence that the founders of our nation invoked divine aid in much of the process of the framing of the constitution among a great many things. Congress opens in prayer with purpose. Even many of the central principles of American constitutional government are founded in Judeo-Christian principles because these principles were thought of as special revelation, truth give to man from God that is superior to any form of truth gained through rational thought. Even the Enlightenment thought of Descartes only justified the veracity of sensory evidence from which rational thought can deduct from because God guarantees the truthfulness of certain perceptions. Without this guarantee there is not trust that anything we perceive has any basis in actual, objective reality. The wise choice is not to leave moral truth to the realm of human rational alone.
More on this but I have to go now.
Peace Sid,
Spencer
- Periannath January 1, 2009 4:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finger. Pie. Stir.
Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying.
...The Catholic church recognizes that homosexuality is not a sin... it is only a sin to act out the homosexuality...ness.
If you say you believe in "God", and then call what "God" made imperfect, don't you think that's defeating the purpose? Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made? If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen.
So, by you saying that homosexuality is a sin, you're completely destroying the very "God" you claim to believe in.
Which doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Especially since you're the one who believes in him.
Last, but not least, that wasn't a case of "begging the question".
- SocialistBetty
January 1, 2009 11:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"by nature objects of wrath" part 1
"Only people who believe in the Christian "God" are moral, is what you're saying."
Actually, I am not saying this. Nothing I said should have given this conclusion however I apologize if it did. Realativly speaking, all people are capable of morality. However, we are only capable in as much as we respond to the Good given to us, not out of our own selves since man is by nature sinful (Romans 5). Though I understand you may not agree with the Scriptures totally pherhaps we can share the common ground that no person is perfect, people are selfish and are not 100% good. This is comparable to what the Scriptures talk about that people have a sin nature that we have inherited through Adam by which we have an innate tendency to bend toward sin, e.g. selfishness, unloving heart and behavior etc. Since the Scriptures teach that God is reaching out to all people everywhere I actually believe that people may be able to act morally good in the true sense if they are responding out of grace given them and by the activity of the Holy Spirit in their soul whether they are Christian or not. There is even the posiblity of man acting morally good out of an original goodness of man that has not been totaly corrupted by the marr of sin. Even beside this sinful people may act morally good at a civil level, though not neccsarily in accordance with absolute good. That is why I say realativly speaking there is moral good that people who are not believrs can do. Even the good that Christians do, that nonbelievers supposdly cannot due, is the result of the goodness of God at work in them and not any more claimable by that person then any other. If it wasn't for God they wouldn't be any different. I hope that wasn't too confusing.
In your second argument you assume many things. You assume that homosexuals are a class of people that have biological cause to their homosexuality. In other words, they are "born with it." Not only is this unverifiable it is not were good science is pointing. Obviously it is not a choice. As I have wresteled with my own homosexuality I will be the first to say "I did not choose this." But there is not way I was born this way.
You say: "Who the crap are you to know better than "God" how a person is supposed to be made?"
Can't we I ask you the same question? How do you know someone living a homosexual lifestyle is living according to God's design? We know that it is not so because God has told us so through his Word. (1 Timothy 3:16, Leviticus 18:22)
You say: "If that person was made by "God" then it was "God" who created that sinful cocktail mix of chemicals that dictates to that person whom he or she will be sexually attracted to. That would make the act of "God" a sinful act... which, if you believe in "God"... you know can't happen."
First off, God created sex and that "mix of chemicals" that all are a part of our sexuality are not sinful. God created sex and he created it good. The falleness of human nature lends what was originally good to all sorts of deviations. The Catholic church (although I am not Roman Catholic) does not teach that a homosexual orientation is sinful but acting on it is, you are correct. But, they do teach that it is an "intrinsic disorder" even an evil. Not that the person is responsible to that sin or evil but that the homosexual orientation is a manifestation of human falleness just like all sin is including deviations such as alcholisim and sexual addicition. The homosexul is a victim to sin like all of us are. Thanks be to God that he has provided a way out of this and brought life to us anew (Romans 5). The Scriptures teach:
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Ephesians 2:1-5, NIV)
We were by natures objects of wrath but God still loved and loves us. This is preciesly why he gave his son to us that if we believe in him we shall not perish but have everlasting, full life now and later. The fact that all people are imperfect and have inclinations to sin is not a product of God's creative work but of Satan's twisting of the good creation through sin. God did not sin in making any of us but all of us have falleness. Homosexuality is just one of many manifestations of this falleness and like all mankind homosexuals are in need of a savior.
- Periannath January 8, 2009 1:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"by nature objects of wrath" part 2
By saying homosexuaity is a sin I am not destroying God because God did not create homosexuality. This is in part why homosexuality is a strong sign of rebellion against God in a society because it goes exactly against the created order and natural intention of the sexual gift.
Lastly, that was a case of begging the question because he was assuming the thing he was trying to prove, rational truth is higher than spiritual truth. He elaborates, I see, in the next post so I give him credit. Thanks for taking the time to read Betty.
Peace be with you,
Spencer
- Periannath January 8, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
NOT begging the question
I most certainly can and do argue that...
1.) Rational [truth is] objective and spiritual truth is subjective
2.) Objective truth is higher than subjective truth
3.) Rational truth is higher than spiritual truth
A belief is objective if it conforms to the facts of reality independent of how anyone interprets it. Like it or not, reality is what it is regardless of what you and I and any one else thinks about it. The key for humans is to use our senses to gather evidence about reality, and to use our rational minds to interpret that evidence and act upon it. Francis Bacon said, "In order to control nature, you must first obey it" (That may be a paraphrase). This means, among other things, that you can't change the nature of reality simply by interpreting it to your liking, or denying the facts, or praying real hard for miracles. Reality is. Our minds simply do their best to understand it and act accordingly. In contrast, spiritual truth as you call it is entirely subjective and has no basis whatever in the real world. I don't see why you would argue with this assertion. As a man a faith you should agree that there is no proof for your belief in christ or even god. The nature of faith, of which I assume you are proud, is belief WITHOUT evidence.
The fact that we make mistakes doesn't change any of this. You are trying to argue that our fallibility as humans makes infallible faith necessary as a guard against our emotionalism, our occasional irrationality, and our inevitable errors. Wrong. Our numerous faiths are just as flawed as anything that humans do, you just deny it by claiming that god himself wrote your moral laws. He did not. Fallible people did, and fallible people like you interpret them and reinterpret them until they get the answers they want. Everything that humans do is flawed. But with my system, the flaws can be discovered and fixed through reason. With your system they are attributed to god and become the law for everyone no matter how ridiculous.
The problem is that belief-without-evidence leads to total subjectivity. If you reject reality and the human perception thereof as the final standard for truth, then anything goes. Everyone can believe anything they want regardless of its incompatibility with the facts of objective reality. And this is exactly what we see around the world. Different religious faiths clash violently because they can't clash rationally through discourse. When there is no objective evidence to present in support of your religious, faith-based views, all thats left to do with those who disagree is kill them. So it has been for 5000 years (more probably). The one truth is objective reality. If we all accepted that, it would go a long way towards ending hate an violence in the world. In contrast, purely subjective faith releases our worst demons (metaphorically) and gives them free reign.
You say "Even many of the central principles of American constitutional government are founded in Judeo-Christian principles because these principles were thought of as special revelation, truth give to man from God that is superior to any form of truth gained through rational thought." Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian morality is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the US Constitution. Christian morality is based on doing the will of god. Obeying god is good, disobeying is bad. The ten commandments are a list of things that we CANNOT do. The Constitution, in contrast, is based on respect for the rights of the individual human being, not on the will of any god. The Constitution is a list of things that CANNOT BE DONE TO US.
The Constitution has the Bill of Rights, the ten commandments are the Bill of Wrongs.
The fact that these two diametrically opposed moral systems frequently draw the same the conclusions (e.g. that murder is wrong) does not change the fact that they do so for entirely different reasons. To me murder is wrong because it violates the humanity of the victim. To you its wrong because it violates god regardless of the victim.
In short, you can't reject rationalism because humans make mistakes and then accept without question (i.e. on faith) whatever the bible says just because you believe that it's the infallible word of god. There is no rational basis for you to believe that. It's just your claim, and it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. And criticizing my system for being imperfect (which it is) doesn't make yours any better or more reasonable. It just makes it more dangerous.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
January 2, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
faith and reason
Peace Sid,
You have changed your argument, I see, or perhaps more precisely clarified it from the apparent fallacies I lying there in. Now that we are on the same page we can move forward.
I want you to know before I continue that I have no desire to belittle you or make you feel inferior because of your lack of faith, or the faith that you do have in rationalism. Sometimes I find these forums and online means of communication tiresome. I don't really know you, and you don't really know me. This isn't the most conducive to honest communication and dialogue. My overarching aim is to wish you the best in all that life has for you. When I write peace I do not write it as a mere triviality but as sincere request for peace to come upon you and your life. With this I shall continue.
As arguments do often rest on premises so does yours. Your premise is "Rational truth is objective and spiritual truth is subjective." I beg to differ.
Rational truth can be objective and it can be subjective it is not more bound in objectivity or subjectivity than spiritual truth or faith faith, for that matter. Rational truth can be objective as you argue, when it bases itself self out of conclusions drawn from the real including that which is material is this world and in the whole universe. Even here though, there is a principle assumption that is "believed," that is faith is necessary for reason to be valid objectively because we must assume, or believe with faith, that the human senses are actually and able to perceive the real and that the human mind is able to make sense out what is perceived in a manner that is true. This basic premise must be believed for rational thought to have any air of possible objectivity. Rational thought, is therefore, always dependent on a certain amount of faith.
If faith is as you say, belief without evidence then it is a belief in something independent of any concept of the real, it is subjective and all rational truth is therefore subjective. This is a primary problem in metaphysics. The first philosophers to shed off the tradition Aristotelian scholasticism found it necessary to validate reality in faith. Descartes, for instance doubted that our perception of anything is guaranteed except that which is guaranteed by God. Later philosophers who "dumped" the idea that the real can be perceived because God guarantees it also dumped any notion of objective reality. Objective reality forever became something beyond human grasp nor could any such validation be made of whether there even was an objective reality. David Hume advanced this concept when he argued that humans merely receive impressions from the outside and makes sense of them internally through laws of association. This assemblage and putting together of external impressions is an entirely subjective feat. Immanuel Kant further advanced this when he said that our only understanding of reality is through our experiences. These experiences he called phenomenon and so humans a a phenomenological attempt at truth but had no access to what he called noumenal reality or what we know as objective reality. He said that it is the mind that shapes reality and not reality the mind since we put our thoughts together through our categories of understanding. Other philosophers and anthropologists have even yet further argued that these categories of understanding are primarily determined by our language, such as is argued in the sapir-whorf hypothesis. The point of my detour through some history of modern philosophy is to show that without God and without faith there is not real. If any of these Godless, worldviews are adopted then there is no objective reality metaphysically for there to be an objective truth let alone an objective truth that happens to be rational. Therefore, in either case, whether we can reach an objective reality guaranteed by God or cannot rational and reason is subjective or dependent on faith. Before I move on I would like to define more precisely what subjective and objective actually mean:
"Objective: Having actual existence or reality."
"Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world"
Both from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition
- Periannath January 15, 2009 5:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
faith and reason part 2
If rational truth is not subjective and it can be validated by this faith, a faith which requires God, then it is dependent on a spiritual truth. If this spiritual truth is merely subjective than anything built on its foundation must also be subjective. In this case there is again, no objective rational truth. However, if it is objective than rational truth can also be objective. Therefore, if rational truth is objective so must be spiritual truth. This is not to disregard the reality that each human does have different experiences and phenomenon and that our minds make sense often with our language and other systems of the world around us. However, there is an objective reality we can know because of God. God is just an abstract exterior concept that as a principle guarantees our true witness of reality but he himself is involved in this world. He was involved as its Creator, sustains all things and came into it most definitively in the person of Jesus Christ. Spiritual truth has a basis in reality. It is not just human belief but human belief in a real God, in the real person of Jesus Christ.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."- (Hebrews 11:1, KJV)
Faith is evidence. It is evidence not of that which is not real but that which, though unseen, is real.
Notice that I have stated that rational truth, if it is able to be objective, can be objective. It is not always. By the nature of reason it should be sound but by the nature of the humans who reason we know it is often not. We are limited. Rational truth cannot be limited to only materialism or scientisim. That is rational truth is based in the real but that does not mean it is only based in matter or in the stuff we can see, taste, hear, touch etc. Nor is it limited to only being correct if it is scientific and is discerned through the scientific method. Spiritual truth can be perfectly rational but cannot be demanded to bow to the narrow views of materialism or scientisim or naturalism or other human philosophies. This does not mean that spiritual truth is automatically right because it is spiritual but it does mean that spiritual truth can be rational.
You are correct in asserting that anything humans do is flawed. Including our rational minds. Why is it logical that our flawed system of rational should pluck out our flaws when it in itself is flawed. The Word of God however, is from God and through written through men is from him and perfect. Furthermore, faith is also a gift from God. Truth comes from God, without him there is not truth. Truth begins with him not with man. Man is not the measure, God is. That God has spoken to us is how truth comes to us, in the Bible. This truth came through the real, in real societies, in real men and woman in time and history. Likewise did Christ, the Word made flesh. This is the difference between Christianity and all other religions. As Bishop Fulten Sheen said, "If religion is mans search for God Christianity is God's search for man." We can't assume that all religions have the same origin as if they are all essentially the same when in reality they are not. The Bible did not come from man but from God. The pain, unrest and warfare that has spurred from religious conflict is truly tragic. We should be able to be rational but that does not mean that faith is irrational.
The Ten Commandments are not the opposite of the U.S. Constitution, it historically undeniable fact of their and other Biblical influence on the U.S. Constitution. The summary of the commandments is not do not but do, do love God and do love your neighbor. They are laws that deal with God and people. To kill or murder is wrong in Christian faith because it is a sin against God and against that persons humanity. God does stuff with purpose, including give his laws. God hates murder because he loves all people. He wants us to trust him and obey him out of faith and trust but that doesn't mean that because we should obey him because we love and trust him that his laws have not reason, quite the opposite. God is definer of justice itself and he is the source of every reason for justice as he is the source of reason. Biblical faith is not irrational or foolhardy.
""To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his." Job 12:13, NIV
Again, peace Sid,
Spencer
- Periannath January 15, 2009 5:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More begging the question and Non Sequitur
"Rational moral truth is based on the observation that people are all basically the same, that they have the same fundamental physical, psychological, and spiritual needs (by "spiritual" I do NOT mean, religious or supernatural. I merely mean needs that are not physical)."
This understanding of human sameness or shared anthropology is incomplete precisely because you leave out the actual spiritual element of man yet give the illusion that it is included. The idea that all people are basically the same, i.e.. created equal (again something only guaranteed by God), is a Biblical idea. One could suppose that in a modern rationalistic society why would we put so much stock in a principle from a "dusty old book?" Perhaps because this dusty old book is right. You include the physical, biological or bodily part of man (Gk. Soma) and the psychological part (Gk.psyche), but by defining spiritual by something that it is not you actually fail to give an adequate definition which is to state which that thing is. Equating spiritual needs to "merely...needs that are not physical" fails to distinguish between what is actually a spiritual need and what could also be a emotional need or a psychological need which can also not be considered physical in the biological sense. The implication of this vaguely communicated idea of spiritual need actually leaves out the real essence of spiritual need. This is necessary to fit the paradigm of "live and let live" because such a structure of apparent moral law fails to account for the totality of the human experience not just in the individual human experience but in the communal as well. It is incapable of doing so because the motive is not the ultimate concern for the common good but an excuse of the individual to unconcern them self with the good of the other. As the concept "live and let live" is shaped by the humanistic framework of individuals operating as laws unto themselves, it fails. When, as was originally meant in the phrase "live and let live," it is to literally do unto others as you would have them do unto you there is a change for hope. Here the common good and the good of the neighbor is established. It is not about how little should be done (tolerate, mind your own business about the life of others) but what should be done (how can I love my neighbor in this circumstance, what does it mean to love my neighbor?). This is the a central teaching of Jesus Christ and of Christianity. The modern evolution of the idiom however, has scarce remembrances of this original meaning and fails precisely because, again, it does not take into account the breadth of human experience both individually and communally (and is unequipped to address the full experience because its own ethos makes such parts and judgments of others off limits) and has no concern for the common good (because likewise the good cannot be established because the ethos of the modern "live and let live" make such judgments impossible). I should clarify by judgments I don't intend to imply being judgmental but rather only the ability to judge whether the actions, motives and intentions of the other are morally right or wrong according to the Good.
Compare:
"Live and let live, i.e. Do as you would be done by..."-1678, English Proverbs
"Live and let live is a pretty good philosophy. If the guy in the next lane isn't buckled up, why not leave him alone?" (2001, Washington Times)
Both quotes acquired from the The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs.
[See also my other post, "Christ...fully reveals man to himself."]
Secondly, you further beg the question, i.e. provide a circular argument, by stating that live and let live is good because watching people live and let live (without the ability to harm others) is good because you have observed it so. You then conclude, therefore, that homosexuality is not morally wrong. This is Non Sequitur; where the logic of your agrument does not follow from the premise to the conclusion offered.
Peace and Happy New Year,
Spencer
- Periannath January 2, 2009 12:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
please elaborate
"(also in the absence of objective evidence, and in contradiction to much objective evidence)"
Can you elaborate on the above statement?
You say first that there is no objective evidence but continued to say there is objective evidence?
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 2:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't respect conservative Christians, put them to this TEST!
If Christian conservatives were sincere in their condemnation of homosexuals on BIBLICAL biblical grounds, as I show on my http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/God&gays.html they would be just as conscientious about applying the bible 's teaching that those who don't obey the sabbath demands that are repeated forcefully and frequently in "God's Word". How many rich Republicans would support such "Christian conservatives" for public offices, if they were demanding that people not work, or shop, or go to entertainment events one out of seven days every week?!?
In contrast to a few rare and obscure references to homosexuality in the O.Testament, the sabbath command is one of the TEN GREAT COMMANDMENTS, and the penalty required by the bible is DEATH.
How many show the sincerity of their view of "God's Word" by their insistance that people either obey the 4th commandment or DIE?!?
(I would have asked, "should homosexuals be treated as parriahs?" (even if you view it as one of the MANY behaviors condemned by the bible)
- Rayosun
September 10, 2009 4:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
is homosexulity a sin?
Well you know how to use big words but didn't make a point I agree with the bible and both verses you quoted and believe that a man and a women should be married not two men or two women let's think about it we are suppose to reproduce two men can't do that or two women.I sit wrong well that is an matter of opinion and mine is that it is wrong I don't want a queer for a son ,or daughter.
- popabear
November 4, 2009 9:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But isn't everything a sin?
Absolutely. Of course, being both logical and very religious, nearly every single thing any human has done since the “fall into sin” is a sin. That being said along with the common faith that ultimately there is only one punishment for all unrepentant sin, it should not be regarded as such a touchstone issue. Or at least anymore so than murder or swearing. They are all sins against God, they were already forgiven before they even happened; all you have to do is accept that faith. Why do we treat it differently? Because it involves a sexual act?
As human beings we have a tendency to try to categorize things and assign value to actions that don't require it. That is not the way sin works. Homosexuality is essentially the same sin as lusting after someone you pass on the street.
I do have to say it's a sin, but only because as humans every thing we do could be considered a sin.
- JaneSays September 9, 2008 1:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Its the Ungodly reaction to pain.
Hi all,
I dont wanna write down all the scripture in the word of God, the holy bible, that clearly states that this is a sin, however I do wanna share this. God gives people who want out of this life, understanding, as he did for me. I believe one can be free from feelings, it takes work. We are all built with a conscience. And something inside of me knew gay feelings were wrong at a young age, I just didnt know why. The church never told me it was wrong, society, or people, I just knew. I think we all can try to remember those first emotions. And so its all ungodly emotions. Relationships become co-dependant, and we use others to fulfill the pain. Whether its sex or relationship. Nothing is good in homosexuality..Nothing..it's call disfunctional, and can be healed.
If you're gay, you understand hurt..and rejection..fear...disappointment..guilt..anger..being left out and misunderstood. A gay lifestyle offers many promises. Freedom, independence, pride, sympathetic understanding, compassion, fulfilled desires, honesty. Being honest about our feelings is so important. Unlike others, the homosexual has struggled through two traumatic births: the natural birth, and the personal birth of self-acceptance. Both passages are marked by pain and great labor, but the product of the natural birth doesn't remember. The product of the personal birth remembers always. However, a Cruel Deception torments the gay community. Once the "birth" is accomplished and the person comes out of the closet, the promises are not kept. At first there may be relief, pleasure, and the euphoria of belonging. But can the gay lifestyle ever satisfy the deepest desires and longings of the homosexual man or woman? Could all that freedom, pride and sexual activity be covering up feelings? At best, it brings temporary diversion. At worst unfortunately, it brings despair and death. Why? Because those desires, longings, hurts, and fears are common to humanity and are the result of living in a fallen world. Everyone is affected, and only God can save, heal, and satisfy. We must realize that in most instances, the attraction for the same sex begins before the age of ten and is usually non-sexual, emotional, and involuntary. This brings confusion, fear, and guilt on a young person who is already feeling rejected and unworthy, and increases the need for affirmation. It is very common to experience injured, rejected femininity or insecure masculinity. With sexual maturity, the needs become eroticized and the sexual desire is strong because it is linked to the emotions. Sexual activity then becomes a way to feel loved and affirmed, and becomes addictive; we cover the pain with pleasure; we idolize someone like us and are esteemed by them; there is some relief from identity confusion, and we can defy, and have some refuge from, a hostile society. But, has this really dealt with the buried emotions, or are we caught in a pattern of behavior that covers them? There is a strong connection between buried feelings and sexual complusion. God has shown all those who have gotten free that all this was changeable, and He wants to go through the process with you. He wants you to experience the intimacy with Him that overcomes all addictive behavior. You will never have intimacy that can compare with the intimacy with God, who loves and cares for you. God does not want to judge you, He wants to save, forgive, deliver, heal, restore, comfort, renew - all the things that only He can do. For these wonderful things to happen, you will need another birth...the spiritual birth. We all do, because we are fallen, and a fallen world has imposed wounds, fears, alienation and identity confusion on us, and we reacted in sinful ways to compensate, console, and protect ourselves. Jesus Christ came for that very reason, to save the lost and helpless. Come to him and let him do his marvelous work in your life..Let His Love heal the wounds; let His goodness dispel the fears; let his presence replace the loneliness; let his grace and mercy cover all your sins, and let Him give you a new identity as His child. He wants to be your Heavenly Father and give you peace, joy, and security that so many have found. "For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations." Psalm 100:5
- izzy2517 September 10, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Deny yourself and follow Christ
One who has been raised with the knowledge and experience of the scriptures already feels condemned. We don't need to do the condemning but we do need to follow what our hearts and scriptures tell us is right. For most men it is disgusting to think about, nonetheless, we have to face it daily that their are people who think it is perfectly OK to engage in the homosexual lifestyle. It's the society we have helped nuture that has brought us to this choice of yes or no. Pick up your cross (whatever it is),deny yourself, and follow Christ.
- lessofself September 15, 2008 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The homosexual lifestyle?
lessofself wrote:
"we have to face it daily that their are people who think it is perfectly OK to engage in the homosexual lifestyle."
This seems to be a common argument. Make a broad, all-encompassing statement which condemns the homosexual lifestyle and then insist it just a sinful choice.
This argument is illogical because it assumes that all homosexuals live the same way and believe the same way, therefore all homosexuals should be condemned.
Would it be fair to lump all heterosexuals together into one group and then condemn the heterosexual lifestyle based on disgusting heterosexual activity at Mardi Gras?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jonathan-And-David.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 16, 2008 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I second the wow
I hadn't noticed the gay christian link on your comments till this post. And as I am not religious I was already impressed with your previous posts. There are so many paths to take in life and half the fun is seeing what others have chosen. You certainly chose an interesting one. I also second the very well written response, I wish I had written it (if would permit me one second of envy) : )
- mangueken
November 22, 2008 4:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
WOW
Very well written....
thanks
- crash
September 15, 2008 7:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality
when asked recently what i thought of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people...this was my response...
they're awesome people, most of my best frenz from my past are gay or lesbian..and just like the rest of us, they're sinners as well..
i am a sinner, saved only by His grace. i am so far from being able to walk on water without sinking to the bottom..but He loves me enough to save me by His grace.
God loves them as much as He does you or i..Jesus came and died and rose again for them as much as He did for you and i..
God doesn't like what they do, as far the kind of life that they live(nor does He like what thieves, liars, and murderers do)..but they are just as able to be delivered from that life, and saved and be heaven-bound as any of the rest of us..
unfortunately, there are many, many gays and lesbians that believe they can continue living that life and that God will welcome them into heaven along with those that have confessed their sins, and repented of that life..and God is the only one that can judge, but God will not and cannot allow anyone who is unrepentant into heaven..no matter what the sin is.
many and most leaders in the gay church tell their congregations that God is love, and He is..but God is also just..He is holy, and i don't think most people realize exactly what that means..
asking forgiveness of Him for what we've done is one thing..being repentant is another. to repent is to confess that sin and turn from it, in some cases(like mine) run from it;)
alot of Christians approach the glbt community the wrong way..with hate, and contempt, and self-righteousness, and threats of hellfire and brimstone..
which always reminds me of the woman that the pharisees brought to Jesus because she was caught in adultery..when asked what He thought should happen to her for what she had done, He drew a line in the sand and told the crowd of men collected there that "whoever is without sin, let him be the one to cast the first stone"..after thinking about what the Lord had said, and examining themselves (realizing that none of us is without sin), they set their stones down and left..the Lord then turned back to the woman, asking her where her accusers were..He simply told her "to go and sin no more"...
alot of Christians need to remember that when it comes to the hateful, accusing way(s) that they approach those that are still struggling and lost...
- darfox1 September 10, 2008 11:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality(cont.)
i only know what i believe, and what the Lord has laid on my heart...
my prayer for the gay Christian is that the Lord will lift the veil of deceit that the enemy has placed over their eyes and heart in regards to their personal relationship with the Lord.
i know that i believed for the longest time, as i was fence-sitting in my faith, that "God knew where my heart was", which is true, but at the same time, God can't and won't allow sin into heaven. even though i knew what i was doing was wrong in His eyes, there was a hope and belief that He would still save me and welcome me into heaven. the thing is, i was struggling with my sexuality and my faith simultaneously, and even though i knew better, i still wasn't willing to give Him my all, my everything. or maybe at that time, i thought that i had given Him enough to work with.
i was trapped in that corrupt and vicious circle of sin and repent, sin and repent, sin and repent...and if i'd actually repented at all, i would have leaned heavier on Him, gotten into His Word, and turned my back on the sin and walked away(or in my case, ran the other direction as fast as i could). so, i don't think i ever truly repented.
i was also deceived into thinking that as long as i didn't actually go through the act of sex with another person, that it wasn't as bad...when it's scriptural that if we've even so much as lusted after another man(or woman) with our eyes, it is adultery.
Matthew 5: 28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman/man lustfully has already committed adultery with her/him in his/her heart.
so, i was guilty right there. whether it was self-abuse, or having sexual relations with someone else, it is still adultery, as it is sex outside the bonds of marriage, and that in God's eyes is wrong.
there again, for so long, i felt or bought into that whole "God knowing where i stand" thing, what a sad joke...He did know where my heart was, and unfortunately it wasn't truly on Him.
- darfox1 September 10, 2008 11:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely NOT a sin!
I've talked to many gays and lesbians, and call some of them my close friends. ALL have told me that they KNEW they were gay from an early age! I've been quite saddened when they've told me of their struggles, their self hatred and concomitant self-destructive behaviors. I've listened as they've told me of their families disowning them. I've been awestruck when I've heard their stories of redemption and self-acceptance. Many have told me that they wished God had not created them this way. That tells me that, indeed, GOD CREATED GAY PEOPLE! If God is perfect, then this wasn't a mistake! Maybe he created them so that prosthelytizers might learn a lesson about what Jesus would really do!
Here, as always, the problem lies with those who don't practice what they preach. The real problem is those who would control another's actions in the name of religion, social conservatism, or saving the sanctity of marriage (and the children, of course)! The last time I checked, marriage wasn't in any danger! I, for one, will always like women, no matter who or what my neighbor likes. Many of the most ardent opponents of gay rights are repressed homosexuals! Most gays, along with christians, atheists, and everyone else, just want to be left alone to live their lives in freedom and peace. I know I do!
- PSYOP
September 10, 2008 11:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, it is a sin.
PSYOP says >> "Many have told me that they wished God had not created them this way. That tells me that, indeed, GOD CREATED GAY PEOPLE! If God is perfect, then this wasn't a mistake!"<<
There are several major problems with a statement that sounds so right. First of all, our feelings don't determine truth. If we really believed that our world would be in much worse shape than it is.
Secondly, no valid scientific evidence exists to support this oft repeated claim.
Thirdly, people do change. Since this is demonstrably true, it casts serious doubt on the genetic claims.
Fourthly, valid studies do exist to demonstrate that change is possible.
We may quibble over the number who do, etc., but not over the fact that they do change.
Finally, the Bible is quite clear that because of the fall we are all born sinners. We sin because we are sinners, not vice versa. Thus we all have predisposition to sin, to various challenges both physically and spiritually. Consequently we all need a Savior.
A new study says some are predisposed to adultery. Do we accept that and make allowances for it? Or do we use the tools God has given to live the lives He intended.
- pbob
September 11, 2008 8:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You probablyshouldn't have said that....
A person of faith bringing up scientific evidence? That is almost funny. Faith is the antithesis of science. There is no scientific proof of the existence of God yet you choose to believe. I respect that choice but science has nothing to do with anything about faith. Faith, by definition, is the belief in something that there is no proof of.
And you bring up adultery. Would you like a list of "Good Christians" who have crossed that commandment? Yet I have never heard any Christian spewing hatred and oppression towards their fellow Christians who have strayed. You may want to read up on some of the developments in the Catholic church in the last 10 years.
While there may be a passage in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin, there are HUNDREDS of passages that tell you to love your neighbor, judge not, forgiveness, etc etc. If you are a true Christian then you are to treat your fellow man as you would be treated, gay or not. There is no gray in that, it is crystal clear.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 10:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus told me to ignore the rights of the Gays... I heard him say it.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
There are plenty more. You're choosing to ignore mountains of evidence that sexuality is indeed a genetic. The weight of evidence is heavily leaning that way... So, in a way, gay people are aberrations of what is normal. But so are left handed people, albino people, etcetera. Are left-handed people sinful? Do we tell the double-jointed that they're going to hell for choosing to be double jointed? Are Downs babies not born the way "God" meant them to be born? It's a genetic aberration of the what's normal... but you can't say they're imperfect or you'd be saying "God" was imperfect.
People change their behaviors... not their genetic "flaws". Anyone can tell you what you want to hear. And people can behave in convincing manners. That doesn't mean they have "changed".
A left handed person, until recently, was taught that it was "wrong" way to write... and was forced to write with the right. The person undoubtedly "changed". He wrote with his right hand. Wow. That obviously means that left-handedness is a choice!! Yielding to societal pressures means that genetic differences are choices!
And since you believe that one, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
- SocialistBetty
January 4, 2009 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The pot calls the kettle black.
SocialistBetty,
I've read several of your post now on different topics and it's very clear to me that you yourself will believe anything someone tells you as long as it promotes your viewpoints.
Gay Gene? Please, that's been proved a forgery a long time ago. Only the pro-gay community keeps trying to dig up that dead horse and make it walk!
Homosexuality is a learned behavior that can be fixed if dealt with correctly.
Just like an alcoholic, though, if the person isn't willing and doesn't have the will-power or help from God then they'll fail. It's a deep issue that requires determination and help to overcome, but it can be overcome.
- michaelz
January 10, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh Real-lay?
Gay gene? No one's ever said there's a "gay gene". What is that anyway? A gene that sleeps with guys name terry? Just kidding.
There's EVIDENCE... and a lot of it... that points to gayness being an in-born trait.
So how exactly do these people "learn" to be gay? You and I aren't gay. How did we escape the evil clutches of the gay agenda that's hell-bent (pun entirely intended) on "teaching" kids to be gay? Before the "gay agneda" occurred there have been gay people... how did they "learn" to be gay? I know people who've parents have said they knew their kid was gay from childhood... their parents didn't treat them any different than they did the "straight" siblings. How did that child "learn" to be gay?
And since you ingore the fact that homosexuality exists in animals (non-human animals) would you care to explain how you think that gayness is a learned behavior?
And since you've read several of my posts, you would know that I don't base my opinions on idiotic religious views, but on those of reason and observation. But thanks for that. All that statement says is that you can read.
- SocialistBetty
January 11, 2009 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not born gay.
Struggling with homosexuality is not necessarily a sin. The sin is actually giving into those desires both mentally and physically. As a former homosexual, I can say that even though I felt the attracted to the same sex, from an early age, I can tell you, I was not born gay. As a matter of fact, I know gay men that have told me they don't believe they were born gay, and still live in that lifestyle.
Something that I noticed gay men struggle with is seeing themselves as the men that they were born as. I've asked a couple guys living in that lifestyle, about if they felt like men (even at an early age) and if they ever felt like they had to measure up to what they feel being a man is ( I know that was my case and as I mentioned before, plus I've asked other men who live in the gay lifestyle, and they could relate to me).
Another thing that is important to consider is the issue of envy. I believe The reason of why I liked certain kinds of men was because I they happened to have some sort of physical or intellectual feature that I wanted to have, but felt like I didn't have. For example, let's say a certain man ( dealing with homosexuality) wants to have darker skin. He will (most likely) be attracted to men that have darker skin. Now that doesn't mean that he will never feel attracted to someone that has lighter skin, since they might have something that they want to have (physically or mentally).
- ecs119 September 11, 2008 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus said eunuchs (gays) are born that way.
Your comment about not being born gay is interesting. But I don't think we can extrapolate from your experience and the experience of a few gay men you've talked to that no one is born gay.
Jesus, contrary to what many people allege, did address homosexuality. The text is Matthew 19:3-12. Jesus says there are three groups of men who CANNOT receive His teaching about Adam and Eve stle marriage.
The first group Jesus mentions is born eunuchs. The term eunuch was sometimes used to describe what today we would refer to as gay or homosexual.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
I think it is a mistake to assume that gay men are generally the same in their views, beliefs or actions - envious of other men who possess attributes they feel they lack or that gay men are generally effeminate and somehow not real men.
Some gay men do exhibit feminine characteristics but then, so do some heterosexual men. And some gay men are as macho as any heterosexual male.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 14, 2008 3:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
homosexuality...
I do believe Jesus discussed homosexuality,(Romans 1:24-27) but not in the way the "Expert" is saying. He is strongly against homosexuality, as he says in many verses. It is a sin. Also, "eunuch" means a guy with out testicles or testicles that do not function properly. In no way was he reffering to someone 'Born' gay. He simply ment just that. Someone who was born without testicles that do not function properly. They would feel less superior and be less likely to take in what he was saying.
- d-ron30
November 26, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're missing the mark...
"I do believe Jesus discussed homosexuality, (Romans 1:24-27) but not in the way the "Expert" is saying. He is strongly against homosexuality, as he says in many verses. It is a sin."
The Romans 1:24-27 passage is frequently misused and abused today, especially by Christians who want to condemn gays and lesbians.
It is impossible to understand Romans 1 until you factor in Cybele, the fertility goddess whose pagan temple loomed over first century Rome from atop the Palatine Hill.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
What Paul describes is fertility goddess worship, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
To interpret Romans 1:24-27 as a condemnation of gays and lesbians rips the passage from its context of idolatry and idols and false worship.
To interpret Romans 1:24-27 as condemning homosexuals is to ignore the cultural, historical and religious context Paul addressed when he wrote Romans.
First century Christians in Rome were familiar with Cybele's temple because it loomed above the Circus Maximus. The temple was clearly visible and the religious parade every spring, led by the castrated galli priests was well-known to every citizen of Rome.
To insist that Paul was addressing the issue of two women or two men who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together but was not addressing shrine prostitution is a sad misunderstanding of history.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
- Rick Brentlinger
November 26, 2008 10:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I encourage you to study before drawing a conclusion.
"Also, "eunuch" means a guy with out testicles or testicles that do not function properly."
Again, you're simply incorrect. Many anti-gay Christian scholars disagree with you. And I notice you simply give your uninformed opinion with no facts to support what you say.
Dr. Robert Gagnon, the most prolific anti-gay evangelical Christian scholar alive today, commenting on Matthew 19:3-12, admits on his website that:
"Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions." - Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon
The Babylonian Talmud was very clear in pointing out that eunuchs were not necessarily without testicles.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Same-Sex-Attracted-Eunuchs.html
According to the Talmud, a saris/eunuch could produce semen. Therefore he had functioning testicles.
"“R. Joseph said: It must have been such a saris [eunuch] 6 of whom I heard Ammi saying. 'He who is afflicted from birth...’ Our Rabbis taught: Who is a congenital saris [a born eunuch]? 13 Any person who is twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if he produced them afterwards he is deemed to be a saris [born eunuch] in all respects.
And these are his characteristics: He has no beard, his hair is lank, and his skin is smooth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Judah b. Jair: 15 Any person whose urine produces no froth; some say: He who urinates without forming an arch; some say:
He whose semen is watery; and some say: He whose urine does not ferment. Others say: He whose body does not steam after bathing in the winter season. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: 15 He whose voice is abnormal so that one cannot distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman. " - Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, 80
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_80.html #PARTb
Ancient Roman Law also taught that a eunuch was not necessarily diseased or lacking testicles.
“The name of eunuch is a general one; under it come [1] those who are eunuchs by nature [born eunuchs], [2] those who are made eunuchs [by castration or crushing], and [3] any other kind of eunuchs [those who voluntarily abstain from marriage].”
The Digest of Justinian, Vol. IV, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 944.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jesus-On-Hell.html
- Rick Brentlinger
November 26, 2008 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Everything's interpreted literally now?
Then what does "Whisperers do not inherit the kingdom of heaven mean"?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus the Jewish Messiah is The Way
Who, exactly, goes to heaven and who, exactly, goes to hell?
Great question quantummechanik! Jesus the Jewish Messiah warned His mostly Jewish hearers that if they did not believe He was the Jewish Messiah, they would die in their sins.
"I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Gospel of John 8:24
People who trust Jesus Christ alone (no good works, no church membership, no baptism, no confirmation, etc), as the payment for their sins, are saved and go to heaven.
People who refuse to trust Jesus Christ as the payment for their sins, choosing instead to trust their own righteousness, are lost and go to hell.
Here is Here's what the Ten Commandments say plus a short video that explains How To Get Saved.
Rick Brentlinger
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Opposing Views cut out the Link
Oops, sorry. Opposing Views cut out the Link I posted in the previous answer.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Getting-Saved.html
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right, so just to be clear
The lists of who goes to hell are somewhat irrellevant. The only thing that determines your entrance into Heaven is your religious affiliation. Is that an accurate summary?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven
"The only thing that determines your entrance into Heaven is your religious affiliation. Is that an accurate summary?"
You ask some really intelligent questions quantummechanik but No, that is a common but entirely mistaken belief.
Religious affiliation is NOT what determines going to heaven or hell.
Whether or not you have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is what determines whether one goes to heaven or hell.
"Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by me." -John 14:6
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com
- Rick Brentlinger
June 10, 2009 1:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What would you call
a relationship with a particular deity, if not a religious affiliation?
- quantummechanik
June 10, 2009 3:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
thus requiring religious affiliation?
"Whether or not you have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is what determines whether one goes to heaven or hell."
Does this not then REQUIRE following the Christian religion ? Or to phrase it another way... can a member of another religion still have 'a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ"... even if that religion explicitly (as in the case with Islam) or implicitly (as is the case with Shinto) denies the divinity of Jesus Christ.
- MrBook
June 10, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Secret of the Ten Commandments
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com /
- Rick Brentlinger
June 8, 2009 10:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Absolutely not a sin
I read your post and thank you for writing. Not too many people take the time to listen and care for others, but I believe your conclusion is incomplete. Although indeed homosexuals may be from birth and it is not their fault, (that is my personal belief), it does not answer the fundamental question of is it correct behavior or "good behavior" for themselves or anyone else. If you determine what is good as doing as you feel compelled, well what if someone felt compelled to murder, or have sex with children since birth? What if they act on that compulsion, and truly many of these sociopaths are that way from birth. Are we to judge them? Yes, their actions are wrong. Do we condemn them? If they commit crimes, yes. But are the actions of homosexuals wrong in some sense? Absolutely. I can say that because I believe in an absolute moral law, someone who does not belive in a moral law beyond themselves cannot use the word absolute. Do we condemn them? No. Why? Have they taken the rights of another in their actions? No. So they are not doing illegal activity. So what do we as a society do? We love them, we treat them as equals, and we decide for ourselves what is morally correct. I believe it is immoral behavior, do I have that right to believe that, who is to tell me my philosophical beliefs , who is to tell them theirs? To ask a question is it a sin, unfortunately sets up both sides for a fight, it may be better to ask, should we live in the context of our own conciences having a view to the liberties of those in our society. I wonder if anyone would even ponder that one.
- Andante931
November 19, 2008 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The balance between a passing thought and action
I have gotten into many debates about this and I honestly believe that God is quite clear with what He declares is not natural and the act of homosexuality is. Though what must be stressed is that it is the only the action that is sinful. I know of many that have deep seated homosexuality and because of this they find it hard and they will probably never get to the point were they reverse their orientation (oh and another thing for those who believe that it is nature that causes homosexuality then why does the bible condemn it. God didn't make people like this, it's the world that fasions them this way). These people can choose a chase life, they can be gay but they aviod the relationships that most homosexual people have.
- Timmy September 11, 2008 2:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
refrain from all forms of sexual immorality(cont.)
the Christian gay that believes he's doing the right thing and is going to go to heaven is being deceived, and without fully seeing their sin and repenting of it...they are heading toward sorrow and suffering, whether they love God or not, He loves them, too, and doesn't want that to be their future, but He can't allow them into His presence unless there has been repentance and forgiveness. it's hard on both sides...trying to convince a gay Christian that they're heading for trouble (as they should know they are if they know their bible and what the scriptures clearly state), or the non-Christian gay, as they may not necessarily see the need for Christ in their life, if they haven't been explained to the reasons why we need Jesus as our personal Savior.
that's why i feel its crucial that the right witness is sent into the lives of both Christian and non, as there is so much anger towards Jesus and the "Christian" community, due largely to the wrong type of witnessing and preaching by those that attend glbt parades, festivals and events to "spread the Gospel".
i know, having attended the pride parades before, that the "Christians" that show up to these events are(more often than not) red-faced, veins bulging in their foreheads, screaming at these people messages of damnation, which i definitely feel is the wrong approach.
the world is so used to Christians who use these methods, and when they see them doing that, they think "why would i want to live like that" or "that's what Jesus is all about?", and they probably do more harm than good for God's kingdom. their intentions might be good, but their delivery is taken offensively, and if that's their method, i can see why.
what did Jesus do? and what would Jesus do?
i think if we're to reach this community, it needs to be done with love and in such a way that it comes across as that they are truly loved by ourselves and more importantly by Him, but its the lifestyle that is unhealthy and will ultimately lead to death.
like i said before, i know i was deceived for a long time, but i think its because i kept hanging onto other sins in my life, and once i gave everything over to Him i was finally able to start to be healed in every area.
so, yeah...it's the prayer of realizing our sin, and the resulting deliverance from it. it's hard, too, because i know i had alot of people around me that coddled my sin lifestyle, and filled me with "feel-good" vibes, saying "well, my "god" wouldn't send someone to hell for being gay"...and that's the first mistake right there. of course, their "god" wouldn't send someone to hell for being gay, because they have just created a "god" that fits their liking and approves of such things, whereas it states in scripture a number of times how wrong sexual sin is in the eyes of the Lord. i dont know how many times i'd be engaged in that type of discussion/debate with someone, but if they say their "god" wouldn't do that, then that in itself is idolatry, as they've just created their own "god". if that were the case, then there would also be a large portion of liars, and thieves, and murderers(all unrepentant) in heaven, and as i said before...God loves us, but He can't allow these things in His kingdom.
i have so many friends still in the lifestyle, and i pray daily for their salvation.
it breaks my heart that many won't turn to Him in time before its too late, but yet i pray that they may...
- darfox1 September 11, 2008 6:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If what you say is true, then God is an unjust God.
If what you say is true, and a murderer, rapist, or someone who is an awful person all of their lives, repents before death and goes to heaven, and yet a gay man/woman who hurts no one, but seems to "offend" people just by being themselves, can not go to heaven because they won't repent.......then that God is a not a God to me anymore, but the devil. I'm not religious as you can tell. This country was founded on religious freedom, and yet it seems we have no freedom not to believe what others choose for us to believe. I am not "saved" and I have not "found jesus" yet. Most likely I never will. Maybe that means I will go to hell, however, isn't that my choice to make and God's responsibility, not everyone else's, to judge me? Because it seems to me, that all the religious followers seem to think God can't handle his job, and want to do all the judging for him. Well, if you truly believe he is all powerful and is the one to judge him, why can't we leave homosexuals alone? Go after the really bad people, who hurt other people all the time, and then when that situation is taken care of, then take care of the lesser evils as you see them.
- michecrawfo1
September 15, 2008 9:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Sin By Whose Standards?
I find it interesting that every entry here regards sin in the context of the Abrahamic religions, and most specifically Christianity. If we view the question from the context of other religions, such as Hindu, Buddism or Wicca we find different answers to this question. Many sects within the Eastern religions are more tolerant of homosexuality and do not consider it a sin. Wiccans do not consider homosexuality a sin. The Bible is not the only moral yardstick in the world.
- Pat Cheney
September 15, 2008 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuals without engaging in the sexual activities.
In response to your answer about a "broad" statement. Yes you are right, it is a broad statement, but I am one who is on the other side of the situation here. What do you say about a man who has been married for 24 years and then decides to cash in on the deal of family and wife. Not many would of guess that he had those tendencies. (not even myself for a long time) They became very noticeable when he stopped being involved with his church family and became involved in other activities. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as being a homosexual but not engaging in the activities of it; because I could vote "yes" on that idea, therefore the vote of "NO" to the question of is Homosexuality a Sin.
- lessofself September 16, 2008 11:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Been on both sides
As someone who spent ten years in the lesbian lifestyle before finding Christ and becoming a Christina, I can tell you that the mental and emotional junk I went through led me to believe that, “there has to be more to your life than this.” To base everything in your life around sexuality and sex is not healthy for anyone straight or gay. Sin is the human depravity that causes us to live and do things outside of health limits. I find that like myself and many others I knew, something in our lives led us to making the choice to live gay. Usually it was abuse, molestation, rejection, or parents speaking things over our lives that caused us to become confused about who we were made to be. No on eis born gay but people can be rejected before they even come out of the mothers womb. A baby knows If its wanted and can sense if its going to be harmed. Then again, we live in a society that defines life begins at conception. That’s a whole different issue.
- AUDREY September 19, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
glad you seen the light
as far as the comment about a babies sense .im really confused about that i never sensed anything when i was in the wound as matter of fact i dont remember any of that. can anyone tell me what its like being in the wound.honestly i would really like to know. i guess i just missed out.
- blah
December 10, 2008 9:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you are happy
Audrey, I'm glad you are happy with the choices you have made, but please try not to make the mistake of assuming that everyone's life, experience and sexuality mirrors your own.
I'm going to make some educated guesses, here, and you can feel free to disagree with them or disavow them as you like. You've made some assumptions about "all gay people," so it is, perhaps, only fair that others make a few about you.
Sometimes when you spend a lot of time thinking about a topic, your vision can become a little narrow and it is easy to assume that everyone else must be seeing things the same way you do. If they claim to see them differently, then it becomes quite natural to assume they must be lying.
However, if you can attempt to look beyond your own experience for a moment, it is important to know that there are many, MANY gay and lesbian people who were not abused, molested, rejected or overly controlled by our parents. Many gay people had perfectly average, typical, relatively uneventful childhoods.
You may have made "choices" in your early adulthood which caused you to decide to enter a relationship with a woman. Your innate ability to be sexually attracted to a woman, though, probably did not arise from any "choice" that you made or any bad experience in your childhood, but rather, from a sexual orientation which allowed you to be attracted to persons of either gender -- bisexuality. Some folks are more drawn to opposite gendered individuals while some are more drawn to same-gendered individuals. Some, however, seem to fall somewhere in the middle. And for a person who is already feeling confused and vulnerable because of a less-than-ideal childhood, such feelings for people of both genders might be quite confusing.
Onto that, then, you layer the convictions taught to you in childhood (or possibly adulthood) that same-gender attractions are "bad" or "sinful." Since you, as perhaps a bisexual woman -- I don't know you, and can only guess based upon the history you present -- feel attractions to both genders, it would be quite natural for you to assume that EVERYONE has a similar experience, but that some people choose the "wrong" gender, while others choose the "right" gender, and that those who choose the "wrong" gender are making a "sinful" choice, based upon the religious teachings you've been indoctrinated with, or chosen to follow.
You then may assume that you chose the "wrong" gender BECAUSE of those bad experiences in your childhood, and that if you hadn't had those experiences, you would not have been tempted to choose the "wrong" gender for your loving attachments.
The problem is, everyone is not you. Many people truly are NOT attracted to people of both genders. Most are attracted entirely or mostly to people of the opposite gender. Some, probably far fewer, are attracted entirely or mostly to people of their own gender. A few, probably like you, are attracted more or less equally to both. And regardless of whether we have idyllic childhoods, brutal childhoods, or something in between, we will still be attracted to the gender to which we are innately attracted.
It is really easy to draw conclusions about others based upon your own experiences, but probably more helpful and mature in the long run to LISTEN to the experiences and self-knowledge of others and to try to understand that their experiences and feelings are every bit as valid and true for them as yours are for you.
- Babaroni
December 12, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuality is not a sin...
Since the bible is interpreted in many ways, translated in numerous versions and how the old law does not apply to Christians—then no, homosexuality is not a sin. Why do religious zealots constantly tell homosexuals that they’re committing a sin by loving another person of the same gender? What about the woman sitting in the pew next to them who has been divorced, yet remarried again while her husband’s still alive? It’s adultery. People are judging based upon their interpretation of the bible, which ultimately separates people.
The old law is just that: old.
Look at Galatians chapter two verses 17 through 21:
"But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God’s approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not one for those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.
That one sentence says it all: {“For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.”}
Then you have this passage:
“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ-and not because we have obeyed the law. ***For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law.***” ~Galatians 2:15-16
Relying on Jesus’ sacrifice is why love between two people is not wrong. The Old Law no longer binds us.
Then, the ex-gay woman chucked this scripture at me:
“Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t you fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers---none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.” Corinthians 6:9-11
They cherry picked that one and left the second part of that scripture out. It finishes off like this:
“There was a time when some of you were just like that, (before Christ), but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.”
If it’s “still” an abomination, then put down the shrimp scampi, because we’re all going hell anyway, as “religious” people will have it.
www.dtrant.blogspot.com
- dpasquella September 22, 2008 12:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Facts are yes its sin
Lets not distort Scripture. No where in scripture does it say "hey everyone its ok to have sex with anyone and anything." In fact the scriptures say the opposite. They don’t even condone more than one partner. However though it is sin this does not mean anyone should hate over it. Scriptures tell the opposite of this too. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I have friends who were and are gay. Though I don’t condone it, I often just share with them the love of Christ and let the Holy Spirit work in them. Ryan a friend from church uses to be gay. He still struggles sometimes, but now he has the strength of Christ. He also now has a family. He gave a speech once at church. It was beautiful.
- rkiser
September 25, 2008 5:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think it's pretty clear...
When the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for two men engaging in sexual activity with one another, I think that's pretty convincing evidence that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God sees it as sinful behavior.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 4:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not quite...
You are misquoting scripture, bagpiper. The passage to which you refer says for a man not to "lie with another man in beds of woman." While the meaning of this seems a bit obscure, it clearly is not a blanket condemnation of all same-gender sexuality. First, it doesn't even apply to women. Second, there is that troubling reference to "in beds of woman."
It would seem to indicate to me that a man who engages in sexual activity with another man in his wife's bed is being condemned here; not surprising, considering that this would be both a situation where someone who is ostensibly heterosexual is engaging in homosexual acts for some reason, and, perhaps more importantly, is commiting adultery in his own wife's bed.
- Babaroni
December 12, 2008 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agree with another post:
Homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality...however, any sexual act outside of lawful marriage is a sin. i don't make a distinction there.
- lisajulia
October 8, 2008 7:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not quite the same
Homosexuality is not a sin. Sodomy is a sin, both within and without marriage.
- thefederalist
October 8, 2008 10:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really?
So the government's approval determines whether an act is "sinful" or not?
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
therefore?
Since homosexuals cannot get legally married in much of the United States then isn't most homosexuality a sin? I find the idea that what is and is not a sin in the eyes of God is determined by the laws of a mortal nation.
- MrBook
June 9, 2009 6:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuality is not a Sin, Homosexual Acts ARE
A person who has a sexual desire for someone of their same sex, does not commit a sin by having a desire.
However, if he indulges the desire in his imagination and then acts upon it (masturbation and/or sexual contact with another) then it becomes a sin.
Why is a homosexual act sinful? For the same reason that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin - it injures the people who indulge in it, destroys the presence of grace in the soul, and leads to a warping of the intellect and will, especially one's view of human dignity.
- Columcille
October 8, 2008 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I know this all too well!
As I have grown up I have seen the lustful behaviors and sexually driven relationships. I see this as a sin because it not only does a disservice to those involved but it is against what we were naturally created for, a man and a woman. If this were not a sin there would have been two guys in the beginning or two women for that matter. Since men and women were created for the purpose of completing each other as well as to reproduce it is easy to say that a homosexual relationship is sinful. That is what is taught however for Christian homosexuals such as myself it causes a major debate. God says no to this but every sin is forgiven if a person strives for a personal relationship with Christ.Therefore I believe it is a sin but nothing greater or less than any other sin such as murder, lying, betrayal, hatred, etc.
- chezdude1
October 9, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leviticus 10-16 As presented from the Holy Bible
10. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14.And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- dadunique
October 11, 2008 3:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God's Word Is Valid
There is nothing more to say than I believe what GOD says is true and HIS spoken,written or revealed WORD is true. Alot of people just can't get it because they want to live how they want to live.
Can a homosexual prove he/she was born this way? and on what basis would you say that?
- REALITY
October 13, 2008 6:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
According to the bible
It says in the bible about not lying with a man as you would a woman (directed at men). So yes, the bible classifies it as a sin. However, it says all sins are equal... so... that small lie you told last week is exactly the same as murdering 1000 people which is the same as stealing a pack of chewing gum which is the same as being gay. Any sin separates us from God so it doesn't matter how 'good' or how 'bad' you are. Romans 3v23 says that 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'.
Or in another version and a bit longer:
Romans 3 vs 21-24
'But in our time something new has been added. What Moses and the prophets witnessed to all those years has happened. The God-setting-things-right that we read about has become Jesus-setting-things-right for us. And not only for us, but for everyone who believes in him. For there is no difference between us and them in this. Since we've compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us, God did it for us. Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we're in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ.'
Basically God knew that man would never be perfect again so he needed someone to take away the sin that separated us from him so he sent Jesus who took all our sin and set us free from the punishment that we deserve. Because he loves us he gave us a simple way out of hell. Jesus. He 'restored us to where he always wanted us to be'.
- XLX
November 3, 2008 4:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes of course
The commons sense answer is of course it is a sin. Those that beleive in scriptures and our heritage know that it is a sin. Those that are practicing this behavior know in their hearts it is wrong. The bible speaks of a time when that which is good is said to be bad and that which is bad will be said to be good. We will then know that the end is coming soon. The radical approach to this situation is proof enough of the legitimate points that I make. Look at how the homosexual audience responded to the recent vote in California. They were ok with voting for BO even though he said marriage is for men and women yet they didn't picket the Black race who voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They didn't picket the Muslims who are on record as being against gay marriage. They violently went after the LDS church. A church that is very very small and have always been against gay marriage and who are only exercising their God given right to disagree. So why the violent approach? Simple really. You lose it when you know in your heart you are wrong.
- heroman
November 12, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bible,Shmyble!
I don't believe the Bible was created or related to the exesentence of GOD. If god thinks Homosexuality a sin, Then why would he make Homosexual's? Not to be ridduculed! It's purposturous to assume that Cause it's in the bible that it's real! There are many things in the bible that don't make sence, this being one of them. I think the bible might be a Fictionary tale. It is not a sin! Cause if it was then he would make people born with knives in there hands and a motive to kill! Then if being gay is such a sin, then what are the people that critisize people for who they are? Not sinning? Judgeing people,Not sinning? People shouldn't judge people like that. Is it a sin?Not anymore than judgeing someone who is.If it's a sin that their gay, then it's a sin that your straight.
- Kawaii
December 15, 2008 5:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sin
According to the bible, God created man and woman without sin. But sin entered the world through the means of a serpent(satan)and influenced the two to fall from God's grace by eating of the tree he commanded them not to eat, which was the first sin. After that everything kind of went to pot and nothing is what God had intended it to be. The whole world and everything pretty much sucks because of it. There's death, desease, anger, sadness, immorality, evil etc. because of that first sin. For a long time death was the only atonement for sin, because God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate of that tree they would surely die. So, people had to sacrifice their purest/spottless animal to make up for their sins. That was until Jesus came and sacrificed himself for everyone's sins, commited and uncommited. Now I could totally see how someone could look at it as a fairy tale made up by cavemen or something, because it does sound crazy doesn't it? It's hard to believe any of it. But is it just as hard to believe that everything we see, touch or feel just created itself and it happens to all work just right? Not one molecule or one fragment is out of place. If the earth and atmosphere were any larger or smaller, we wouldn't be here.I just happen to think that it's harder to believe the pieces "just happened" to fall perfectly together without something greater behind it all. Everything has a beginning.SO, God didn't create us the way we are today, we became this way as a result of that first sin. I'm just explaining it as interpreted from the bible. Not trying to argue. Thanks
- blond2much
February 2, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To Pastor Rick
Just out of curiosity do you have any information on these 40 (or 10 year etc) year committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships there are? Such would be a starting point (I just signed up today).
- Esdraelon
February 13, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So, if a homosexual isn't affiliated with any religion..
I don't study the Bible, so I'm not exactly if this is true, but from what I've heard, the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin. If this is true, what if someone who is homosexual doesn't believe in the Bible? What if they're affiliated with another religion? Or no religion? Then, would their personal choice be considered a sin?
Many would consider murder wrong. Killing impacts another directly. Choosing someone of the same sex to be a life parter is a personal choice that only directly impacts the two that are involved, and perhaps to some extent, their family and friends. That isn't harming anyone. They make their choices. You make your own.
- deepikaur
March 1, 2009 6:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
scripture never said homosexuality was a sin
all scripture is god breathed(1tim)
but scripture never said homosexuality was a sin.
under the old covenant not all prohibitions of themselves were sins.
num 15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
doing household chores is not a sin. the essence doing household chores on the sabbath is not sin. yet under the old covenant because god made a prohibition about it it became a sin.
hebrews 8: 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
- FEETXXXL
March 4, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
homosexuality is not a sin
under the new covenant.......... 1thess 5:21 test everything, keep the good. how can we test the law if we are still under it and have a canonical relation to it as in deut 28
as believers our test is as specified in 1john1 "that which have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched."
it is a test of witness thru fellowship of the holy spirit, thru the one who lives in each believer(the triune god)of walking in the light.
it is a witness to test where the spirit of christ(god) rests. because wherever the spirit of god rests that is what is approved by god.
the witness of believers is that believing homosexual lives and marriages are filled by the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages.
jesus said "you will recognize them by their fruit" fruit being the fruit of the spirit because it is of the fruit of the spirit that we lay up treasures in heaven..............these are the things that last.
about all this energy about moral law . in romans paul said we are no longer under the law but grace. paul in romans says that under the new covenant we are now led and serve of the spirit. that we are callled to a higher standard of fulfilling the law(love) rather than following it. because now our conviction about sin is from our heart with the one who lives in us, rather than thru a set of laws about controling are outward physical lives. the law is now for making us conscious of sin..........conscious of loving our neighbor as ourselves.................. the summation of all the law. but it is the spirit that convicts our hearts about our sin.
the conviction is thru godly sorrow in our hearts, and it is without regret.(2cor7:7-10)
if king david had loved his neighbor as himself( under the new covenant the 2nd commandment is the summation of all the law(romans)) he would never have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.
- FEETXXXL
March 4, 2009 8:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuality is Not a Sin when Interpreted properly
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality . These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=10620&pid=805
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/about/homosexuality.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com /
Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.
This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.
- ShadowMan
March 21, 2009 3:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The true meaning of Leviticus and Romans
----------------------------
Leviticus
----------------------------
Leviticus is commonly misinterpreted to refer to homosexuals with the following 2 verses:
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
These verses have nothing to do with homosexuality when you look at the rest of Leviticus and other passages. Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.
The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.
It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.
Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
--------------------------------
Romans
--------------------------------
This is another passage commonly taken out of context. Romans was not talking about homosexuality, it was referring to idolatrous practices and other sins.
Letters from the Apostle Paul Romans 1:26-27
If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching .
Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.
Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.
The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
- ShadowMan
March 21, 2009 3:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More passages commonly misinterpreted
=========
SODOM
=========
The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality ."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder , disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.
All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY. The story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.
====================
CORINTHIANS
====================
This passage virtually shows how many twist and change God's words to spread hate.
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.
Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.
Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.
First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.
Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)
Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.
- ShadowMan
March 23, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re: Corinthians
KJV 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Homosexuals would fall under fornicators or "pornos" since there are no homosexual marriages.
- Screen Name
April 8, 2009 2:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is a problem with the question
The field has not been marked out clearly. This is a very open ended question.
What results is that people from all types of faiths and beliefs give contradicting views. Which is fine if you are not looking for something conclusive: however if this is to be debated clearly, would it not be better to define the questions?
Sin according to who? or what? Are we looking at the
Judeo-Christian bible ? The Jewish scriptures? The Qu'an?
You cannot lump this question into believers V non believers.
If the question were asked more specifically like:
According to the Judeo- Christian bible is homosexuality a sin?
In this case people from all faiths can reason from the biblical perspective to answer the question rather than asking the question is the bible correct / altered or any other host of questions.
As a non believer it would be a great objective undertaking to answer it from the bible point of view, weather you agree or not.
You can put forward the question " is the bible trustworthy" at another time, for it is a subject completely on its own.
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your "Expert"
The question's legitimate, I suppose, but the answer is obviously no. A sin must be an action, and homosexuality is NOT an action. It's not something you DO, it's something you ARE. It also must be chosen, and sexual orientation is NOT chosen.
However, my major objection comes from your supposed "expert." That as an expert on this topic you chose the insidious hate group "Exodus" to give their proven lies is horrifying. Not ONLY do they promote the hateful lie that it's a "sin" to be gay, blasphemously misusing twisted and out of context scripture as their weapon, but they also promote a far more insidious and dangerous lie...that they can "cure" homosexuality, turn gay people into straight people.
This is not only a PROVEN lie...there is no such thing as a former homosexual...but this lie destroys countless lives. EVERY credible mental health authority confirms that not only can a gay person not EVER turn into a heterosexual, but that it causes tremendous damage to try. You should be aware that of the two founders of this hate group, one is still promoting the lie of being a "former homosexual" even though he's admitted in interviews that he still "struggles with temptation"
In other words, he's still attracted romantically and physically to men.
In other words, he's still homosexual. Being celebate, or even forcing yourself to have sex with women, doesn't change this fact.
On the other hand, the OTHER of the two founders of Exodus now admits the entire thing was a fraud, and is now living as what he ALWAYS really was...a gay man.
Intentionally causing harm to people is a moral outrage. To pretend to be a "Christian" group while doing so is blasphemy of the worst kind, like the KKK pretending to be a "Christian" group. Exodus should be removed from your site, they're no "expert" in anything except promoting bigotry and lies.
- Dad
May 8, 2009 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
we all have sinned
You ask is being gay a sin.One sin is not as bad as another sin and we all have sinned.You without sin cast the frist stone.JESUS LOVES US ALL. HE DIED FOR YOU.COME TO JESUS today.COME
- zman
May 30, 2009 9:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who cares?
Why worry about it? "Sin" is only a concern if you buy into that particular mythology anyway. Besides, any religion 's idea of "immoral" shouldn't necessarily be "illegal". As long as you are harming no innocent person (someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed right now) what you do is no one's business but your own.
- KentMcManigal June 8, 2009 5:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
presupposed worldview
To even ask this question requires a worldview where Sin exists. This is not a legal or moral issue, it is a Christian one, and is only valid if your worldview includes the concept of Sin.
- MrBook
June 9, 2009 6:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is a Sin?
Homosexuality is NOT a sin; ignorance is. The bible is based on OPINIONS of what is "Wrong" or "Right". The bible is fiction book, in my opinion.
- The Antagonist
July 13, 2009 11:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The centurion's pais
If Jesus didn't condemn Gays why should we? When Jesus healed the centurion's servant the word for servant was pais. Pais denotes a gay relationship. But Jesus didn't condemn the relationship?
- mike1948
August 1, 2009 1:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Recoculous
The entire concept of sin is ludicrous. The funniest thing about people that think this way is that they are the pure definition of hypocrite. They take the Bible verbatim, yet they choose what to take verbatim (another discussion if this is a verbatim sin all together) when it benefits but ignore when it doesn't. For example, the concept of casting the first stone, or the concept that only God can decide right and wrong, or the belief that Jesus supposedly hung out with the dregs of society because they had the first chance at heaven. Those who persecute are the most likely candidates for Hell. While I don't believe in any of this malarkey, the concept that something which is not one's choice is a sin is hilarious. Leave homosexuals alone, they are generally nicer and more generous people and closer to the false image we portray of Jesus than any of the finger pointing focus on the family, Southern Baptist morons in this country.
- remeadial
August 2, 2009 11:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hypocrites.
I am a fundamentalist Christian, I take the Bible as it is written. I also have know many gays and don't think homosexually is a sin. Jesus did not judge gays and taught that we should judge anyone. It is disturbing to me that people get turned off Christianity by a few vocal hypocrites.
- mike1948
August 3, 2009 3:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuality is what God made us!
If we accept what the church has always taught us that God created us in his Image and that God would never creat imperfect humans, than how can Gays be considered sinful as a group? Most scientific and theological scholars have determined that gays don't make choices to be gay but are born with this! I never wanted to be gay-but to have a loving wife and kids and live a life devoid of discrimination and sorrow at times! We are all sinners but if you lead a righteous life and follow the example Jesus set for us by loving an acepting everyone, than we will be in heaven! Jesus Christ never once preached against homosexuals-there is no shred of evidence in the New Testament.
I personally do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible
because it has been interpreted so many times over the years and when you do that, we lose certain meanings as a result. The far right has always needed to find scapgoat for their hate-being blacks during the civil rights era, the fight over abortion rights or now attacking and spreading lies and contempt towards gays and lesbian people. We are
making progress but is slow and ever forward despite the huge amount of money and hatred that spews from the so-called religious right and other fanatics! I wonder after they fail trying to convince the American people how wicked and terrible we are, who will they single out for their hatred? Native Americans or maybe the Canadians?
- philly53
August 30, 2009 8:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes it is
It isn't popular to go against the so called "politically correct" agenda that seems to be sweeping the world, but a spade is still a spade. God's very own book states clearly that homosexuality is an abomination. You don't have to like it, you don't have to adhere to it, but don't pretend it isn't there. It's a sin just as much as adultry, murder , stealing, bearing false witness, or any other of the countless disgusting things we do. Before they start to change the Bible, they should realize there are some specific verses there that pertain to those who do just that.
- chief45
September 1, 2009 8:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A sin is a sin
And how many shellfish have you eaten in your life?
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 9:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
typical
I don't see anywhere in my comment where I said I haven't sinned, if that's what you mean. But an interesting side point is that I "don't" eat shellfish, but for other reasons. If you're trying to say that the old testiment is mute, that fails, as I believe the 10 commandments are in there? Something about not murdering and the like...I think that would still be in effect.
- chief45
September 2, 2009 8:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sabbath.
A better question would have been, do you worship on Saturday or Sunday?
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm Jewish
I am old testament as anything. So that I still go with. I just wonder how it still applies that Christians can debate what constitutes sin, what the ramifications of that are, etc. when sin, to you guys, is like oxygen. Everyone has it, everyone has it in equal amounts, and no one is any better than anyone else because everyone breathes. A thief is the equivalent of a murderer, a homosexual is the equivalent of a married guy who thinks some other lady is quite attractive. Sin is sin, consummated or unconsummated, as the case may be.
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sin.
As a Christian I want to tell you that Jesus couldn't have said it any better!
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 10:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This begs the question
If, on a supernatural level, lust of any sort counts the same consummated or unconsummated, why not just go ahead and consummate. You can't get in any worse trouble, and if it makes you happy...
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1+!=2
Thinking it is one sin, doing it is a second sin. Is thinking about murdering someone just as bad as actually murdering him?
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 11:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Logical Morality
"Because God says so" is not an acceptable answer on its own, for if homosexuality really is immoral then there should be a a logical explanation to support it. God would not forbid something without reason. The ill effects of homosexuality should be observable in society.
Most respectable scientific organizations that have done research on homosexuality have concluded:
1) Homosexuals are just as stable, healthy, and functional as heterosexuals.
2) People do not choose their sexual orientation.
3) Homosexuals desire the same things from their relationships as heterosexuals (companionship, love, raise families); they are not simply perverse and sex driven.
4) Attempting to change sexual orientation is usually ineffectual and can be psychologically damaging.
List of Health Organizations that analyzed the research and issued policies in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, American Counseling Association, American Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, American Academy of Family Physicians, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American School Counselor Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association.
Scientific evidence is hard to refute, but many still try. Some argue that their research is effected by liberal bias . This is complete fallacy. These organizations are national groups that represents people from a diverse range of political, religious, and racial backgrounds. These organizations do research on many topics out sexual orientations and have no invested interest in supporting homosexuals .
- jeremiahjoplin
October 24, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Knowing God's Original Intent
It is dangerous to argue that we as humans know God's intent. To simply state "God's original intent is..." is simply an opinion, not a fact. These statements have been used throughout history, but are based more in traditions than in factual evidence. Several opinions about "God's intent" have shown to be false.
At one time people believed that God did not create all races equal and that slavery is acceptable. This is very easy to be supported Biblically, for there is a consistent opinion throughout scripture that slaves must submit to their master, and the Bible states "slaves are property." Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. If you believe owning another person as property is wrong, you will not be able to support that Biblically. It was believed that women were not created equal to men and women have a lower mental capacity than men; women must submit to men. People argued God separated the races for a reason and therefore races should not intermarry. There are Bible verses that, when taken literally, support all of these statements.
The churched condemned Galileo as a heretic because he said the earth revolved around the sun. Their understanding was that God created the earth and put humans on it. Therefore, the earth must be the center of the universe. Many well respected religious such as John Calvin and Martin Luther quoted scripture against Galileo. They could not get past their understanding of God's Intent.
We cannot know God's original intent and therefore cannot use this as an argument.
- jeremiahjoplin
October 24, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.