The Controversial Opinion Thread
- Thread starter Zach91
- Start date
- Status
- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,669
- 19,838
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
sleep well
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2014
- 5,976
- 2,599
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Miss Spaulding
Virtus semper viridis
- Jan 6, 2005
- 21,927
- 7,159
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Oh gosh, no. It's a real treatment. Look into it...although you'll probably have to wade through the crap that condemns it. After all, there's no money to be gained by it.
Upvote
0
William67
Member
They diagnosed my maternal grandmother with cancer in December, 1985. She had exploratory surgery in Feb. '86. The cancer was everywhere. It had started with her ovaries, but it was in her intestines, stomach, liver... They gave her 4-6 months.
Chemo began as soon as she was healed from the surgery. After 4 rounds of chemo, she said enough was enough. Her hair had fallen out, her eyebrows, even her eyelashes were gone. She couldn't eat. She said that the morphine she had to take made everything taste like it had come out of a sewer.
She died in April, 1987. She was 5'3". And at the time of her death, she weighed just over 74lbs. She died at home as she wanted, surrounded by her family. In the weeks leading up to her death, with the cancer having spread all over her body, the morphine and other pain killers just didn't stop the pain. I would watch as her small, emaciated frame twisted in agony. As soon as the pain would ease, she would lift her hands up and say, "Praise God! Thank you Jesus!"
For her doctor, it was chemo or nothing. He offered her no alternatives. The day after her funeral, I had an almost overwhelming urge to grab a rifle and put 15 rounds into her doctor's worthless skull.
Upvote
0
fromtheAsh
That one girl from that one website.
Same-sex relationships are not always necessarily sinful.
1) Scripture isn't as clear as it appears to be
Romans 1:26-27 - The point of this passage is not about homosexuality, it's about idol worship. He starts out by saying this, and then goes on to say the results of this idolatry that was happening. He starts out explaining humanity's fallen nature by something they would have all been familiar with, fertility cults in Rome, where both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites occurred. It's clear from his language he's talking about homosexuality in that context by saying "therefore" in v.24 "because of this" in v.26, and not the list of sins that follow in the remainder of the passage. He using it as a example of the unnaturalness of turning from God and to display in the rites in the most appealing way imaginable to unify the church in saying "how disgusting and immoral!". Paul has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in the passage, he either sees it as outright bad or at the least, "shameful". However, we must recognize that it is not the point of the passage, it's mentioned for a specific reason in connection with specific acts that were familiar to his audience.
It does speak negatively of homosexual behavior, and in context in a way that is sinful. However, Paul using the same Greek words to describe men with long hair in 1 Corithinans 11:14, which we generally consider that to be culturally applied.
1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Tim 1:10 - The only other mentions to homosexuality in the New Testament, besides in Jude, which is a misunderstanding/mistranslations of what actually happened in Sodom, but that's already been explained in the thread. In the passages of 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Tim, Paul mentions the "arsenokoitai", a sinful group. There's has been a debate about what this word actually means, so much so that it's translated as two different things in the NIV. This is partially because of how rare is it used in ancient writings. The word, arsenokoitai, is a compound word in Greek that makes references to "male" and "bed". It's the same words that appear in the Greek translation of the Leviticus passage. However, Greek compound words don't always mean what they appear to mean, for example "Cyclops" literally means "round eye". Regardless, I think it's fairly safe to assume Paul was reference some group engaging in some kind of homosexual behavior. What kind? We have absolutely no idea, but it was common enough that everyone would have been easily connected with it. I'd say it's likely talking about the practice of married men who would have sex with male youths on the side, a practice frowned upon by many Greeks even though it was publicly practiced. This would also explain why it's not listed with adultery, as according to Greek thought, a side-boy wasn't adultery, and why the "malakoi" (which many scholars think are referencing the young men in these relationships) is mentioned.
Leviticus 18-20 - The beginning of this section of rules in verses 1-4, God is saying he wants to keep the Israelites pure and separate from the cultures surrounding them. This is why people usually list the other things in this passage we look past today, such as getting tattoos, shaving, wearing mixed clothing, or having sex during a woman's period. There's less quoted ones about sacrificing children to Molech (18:21) and eating fruit too quickly from a tree (19:23). Outside of the context of keeping the Israelites separate, it's a very strange collection of rules.
2) Thus, the assumption that all gay relationships are sinful goes beyond scripture.
The problem with the view that homosexual relationships are sinful goes much deeper than how we interpret scripture. It says that not only are those referred to in scripture, there is no reference to committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in scripture, but all gay relationships are sinful.
For example, you know two couples: one gay and one straight. These couples are both Christian, equally devoted to Christ. Both have made a commitment to stay together and be faithful to each other the rest of their lives. They both have a certain sense of balance. In every respect, they are completely identical with the only exception of one being gay and the other straight. We're supposed to celebrate one couple and condemn the other?
Here's another way of explaining that. Suppose my friend James meets and falls in love with a person named Sam. They spend years getting to know each other, and get close to each other and Christ. They decide to promise to be together for the rest of their lives in marriage. So James comes to me about it, someone who condemns all homosexual relationships, I say "That's immoral! You and Sam are doing a sinful thing before God!" James replies, "Sam is short for Samantha". Suddenly, my opinion changes to "That's wonderful, the best to you! Blessings on your marriage!" The only thing that changed is that in my mind, Sam went from male to female. That one thing, changed the relationship from wrong and disgusting to holy and beautiful - even though literally nothing else changed about anyone's motivations. To me, that doesn't seem to be quite right. There's a discrepancy, and I think people even realize this and that's why they say it's God saying this and not me.
3) Love is the fulfillment and purpose of God's commandments
That view is based on the idea that we need to follow Biblical commands regardless of how much sense it makes to us, which people usually cite "Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding" to support. There's nothing wrong with that, except the texts that condemn homosexuality have been explained other ways (as I previously did), and mentioned nothing about gay marriage or any sort of monogamous, committed gay relationship. If we apply the same reasoning to other passages we apply to homosexuality, we end up with some major headaches. Take Romans 13:1 for example, the passage about governmental authorities. There are people out there that will claim the American revolution, civil rights movement, even Germans who resisted the Nazis were sinful in doing so. For the majority of us, we inherently know that can't be right. Thus, no one consistently applies scripture in a literal, word-for-word direct application. Anyone is honest will admit some passages either 1) Don't apply at all today, 2) Still apply, but not what they mean on the surface, 3) Are overruled by other passages or themes. The third of which is where I believe God takes no issue with committed, loving, selfless homosexual relationships.
Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." Paul is merely rewording/expanding what Jesus is saying are the greatest commandments, and is a different wording of what the writer of 1 John is saying in chapter 4. Paul is saying every commandment can be summed up to the rule of "love your neighbor". If we lived our lives in such a way with a truly loving spirit, in loving ways, we would automatically fulfill every one of God's laws. Jesus says the same in gospels, but with Jewish phrasing.
Adultery, murder, greed, etc. are all inherently unloving acts. If you loved your spouse, you don't cheat on someone. If you loved the poor, you wouldn't act greedy towards them. If you love someone, you don't covet what they have you, you are happy good things have come their way. We could literally do this for everyone single one of God's commands. How can you do this with two equally loving, selflessness, etc.? You cannot rule one of them sinful just based of gender because it completely contradicts this rule Paul gives here, Jesus says in the gospels - a rule that apply to every commandment.
This isn't just a random passage, Paul spends almost the entire book of Romans building an argument about law, grace, and sin. He uses the word 74 times, this is last time. It's the conclusion of his argument, one that goes back all of the way to the Old Testament "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." A passage, that Jesus references about the principle of the law and how we're supposed to read scriptures.
Jesus and Paul aren't saying we're allowed to break rules sometimes, nor that God is getting soft on sin. God, like us, also knows that mere rules and regulations are not always sufficient to actually define sin, the specifics make a huge difference. For example, killing is a sin and terrible crime, but there are situations, such as self-defense, which we do not hold someone accountable. As Jesus made clear in his incidents with Pharisees, God judges our actions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account our hear, motives, and specifics of the the situation, not just mindlessly applying a set of rigid rules.
Every one of God's laws has a purpose, and we can see in scripture, even outside of Jesus, when that purpose was no longer needed. Just compare Duet. 23:1-3 to Isaiah 56:3-8, Eunichs are excluded to demonstrate God's holiness, but later that command is no longer necessary to accomplish that purpose and becomes obsolete. Looking at the reasons behind each command rather than just the letter is exactly what Jesus' does with the Sabbath. It explains why God's standards seem to change even though God Himself does not change, and why Christians are getting inked, they don't serve the same purpose anymore as when they were first commanded. Jesus even takes us a bit further to point out the principle of the law actually holds us to a higher standard. That's the entire purpose of the Sermon on the Mount, and over and over again in the rest of the gospels Jesus reiterates that God is more interesting the the underlying principles than rules themselves. To suggest a command that doesn't fit into God's underlying principle, love, is not only inconsistent, but unbiblical.
We have a great example left for us by the early church, circumcision. The only scriptures the church had were the Jewish scriptures which commanded circumcision as a sign of allegiance to God, and there was probably less wriggle room in scripture than this. The issue was over whether or not gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised. The Gentiles in question knew two things: they trusted Jesus and didn't want to take a knife to their manhood. Even Peter and Paul had a public confrontation about this (Gal 2:11-14). The churches ultimate decisions was is that it's following the rules for the sake of the rules.
There's always going to be great arguments on both sides, and that's where I think we need to look at the fruit of the relationship. Sin always shows itself, it promises good things, but never delivers. We sin as good because we think that's what we'll get out of it, but we never do. If same-sex relationships were sinful, we wouldn't need theological arguments to tell us that. The bad fruit from those relationships would be readily and clearly apparent. There are those in the gay community that do produce bad fruit, just like there are some heterosexuals that produce bad fruit from their heterosexual relationships and actions. If you ever met Christ-centered gay couple, you'll notice we're identical to our straight counterparts with the exception of one partner's sex. My own, and many other Christ-centered gay relationships are living proof of God's blessings on them. Bad trees cannot produce good fruit.
Disclaimer
These are merely my own personal views and opinions, shaped by prayer, experience, and study. I only encourage people to look at everything in context, don't be afraid to ask difficult questions, pray, but most importantly follow Christ.
1) Scripture isn't as clear as it appears to be
Romans 1:26-27 - The point of this passage is not about homosexuality, it's about idol worship. He starts out by saying this, and then goes on to say the results of this idolatry that was happening. He starts out explaining humanity's fallen nature by something they would have all been familiar with, fertility cults in Rome, where both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites occurred. It's clear from his language he's talking about homosexuality in that context by saying "therefore" in v.24 "because of this" in v.26, and not the list of sins that follow in the remainder of the passage. He using it as a example of the unnaturalness of turning from God and to display in the rites in the most appealing way imaginable to unify the church in saying "how disgusting and immoral!". Paul has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in the passage, he either sees it as outright bad or at the least, "shameful". However, we must recognize that it is not the point of the passage, it's mentioned for a specific reason in connection with specific acts that were familiar to his audience.
It does speak negatively of homosexual behavior, and in context in a way that is sinful. However, Paul using the same Greek words to describe men with long hair in 1 Corithinans 11:14, which we generally consider that to be culturally applied.
1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Tim 1:10 - The only other mentions to homosexuality in the New Testament, besides in Jude, which is a misunderstanding/mistranslations of what actually happened in Sodom, but that's already been explained in the thread. In the passages of 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Tim, Paul mentions the "arsenokoitai", a sinful group. There's has been a debate about what this word actually means, so much so that it's translated as two different things in the NIV. This is partially because of how rare is it used in ancient writings. The word, arsenokoitai, is a compound word in Greek that makes references to "male" and "bed". It's the same words that appear in the Greek translation of the Leviticus passage. However, Greek compound words don't always mean what they appear to mean, for example "Cyclops" literally means "round eye". Regardless, I think it's fairly safe to assume Paul was reference some group engaging in some kind of homosexual behavior. What kind? We have absolutely no idea, but it was common enough that everyone would have been easily connected with it. I'd say it's likely talking about the practice of married men who would have sex with male youths on the side, a practice frowned upon by many Greeks even though it was publicly practiced. This would also explain why it's not listed with adultery, as according to Greek thought, a side-boy wasn't adultery, and why the "malakoi" (which many scholars think are referencing the young men in these relationships) is mentioned.
Leviticus 18-20 - The beginning of this section of rules in verses 1-4, God is saying he wants to keep the Israelites pure and separate from the cultures surrounding them. This is why people usually list the other things in this passage we look past today, such as getting tattoos, shaving, wearing mixed clothing, or having sex during a woman's period. There's less quoted ones about sacrificing children to Molech (18:21) and eating fruit too quickly from a tree (19:23). Outside of the context of keeping the Israelites separate, it's a very strange collection of rules.
2) Thus, the assumption that all gay relationships are sinful goes beyond scripture.
The problem with the view that homosexual relationships are sinful goes much deeper than how we interpret scripture. It says that not only are those referred to in scripture, there is no reference to committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in scripture, but all gay relationships are sinful.
For example, you know two couples: one gay and one straight. These couples are both Christian, equally devoted to Christ. Both have made a commitment to stay together and be faithful to each other the rest of their lives. They both have a certain sense of balance. In every respect, they are completely identical with the only exception of one being gay and the other straight. We're supposed to celebrate one couple and condemn the other?
Here's another way of explaining that. Suppose my friend James meets and falls in love with a person named Sam. They spend years getting to know each other, and get close to each other and Christ. They decide to promise to be together for the rest of their lives in marriage. So James comes to me about it, someone who condemns all homosexual relationships, I say "That's immoral! You and Sam are doing a sinful thing before God!" James replies, "Sam is short for Samantha". Suddenly, my opinion changes to "That's wonderful, the best to you! Blessings on your marriage!" The only thing that changed is that in my mind, Sam went from male to female. That one thing, changed the relationship from wrong and disgusting to holy and beautiful - even though literally nothing else changed about anyone's motivations. To me, that doesn't seem to be quite right. There's a discrepancy, and I think people even realize this and that's why they say it's God saying this and not me.
3) Love is the fulfillment and purpose of God's commandments
That view is based on the idea that we need to follow Biblical commands regardless of how much sense it makes to us, which people usually cite "Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding" to support. There's nothing wrong with that, except the texts that condemn homosexuality have been explained other ways (as I previously did), and mentioned nothing about gay marriage or any sort of monogamous, committed gay relationship. If we apply the same reasoning to other passages we apply to homosexuality, we end up with some major headaches. Take Romans 13:1 for example, the passage about governmental authorities. There are people out there that will claim the American revolution, civil rights movement, even Germans who resisted the Nazis were sinful in doing so. For the majority of us, we inherently know that can't be right. Thus, no one consistently applies scripture in a literal, word-for-word direct application. Anyone is honest will admit some passages either 1) Don't apply at all today, 2) Still apply, but not what they mean on the surface, 3) Are overruled by other passages or themes. The third of which is where I believe God takes no issue with committed, loving, selfless homosexual relationships.
Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." Paul is merely rewording/expanding what Jesus is saying are the greatest commandments, and is a different wording of what the writer of 1 John is saying in chapter 4. Paul is saying every commandment can be summed up to the rule of "love your neighbor". If we lived our lives in such a way with a truly loving spirit, in loving ways, we would automatically fulfill every one of God's laws. Jesus says the same in gospels, but with Jewish phrasing.
Adultery, murder, greed, etc. are all inherently unloving acts. If you loved your spouse, you don't cheat on someone. If you loved the poor, you wouldn't act greedy towards them. If you love someone, you don't covet what they have you, you are happy good things have come their way. We could literally do this for everyone single one of God's commands. How can you do this with two equally loving, selflessness, etc.? You cannot rule one of them sinful just based of gender because it completely contradicts this rule Paul gives here, Jesus says in the gospels - a rule that apply to every commandment.
This isn't just a random passage, Paul spends almost the entire book of Romans building an argument about law, grace, and sin. He uses the word 74 times, this is last time. It's the conclusion of his argument, one that goes back all of the way to the Old Testament "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." A passage, that Jesus references about the principle of the law and how we're supposed to read scriptures.
Jesus and Paul aren't saying we're allowed to break rules sometimes, nor that God is getting soft on sin. God, like us, also knows that mere rules and regulations are not always sufficient to actually define sin, the specifics make a huge difference. For example, killing is a sin and terrible crime, but there are situations, such as self-defense, which we do not hold someone accountable. As Jesus made clear in his incidents with Pharisees, God judges our actions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account our hear, motives, and specifics of the the situation, not just mindlessly applying a set of rigid rules.
Every one of God's laws has a purpose, and we can see in scripture, even outside of Jesus, when that purpose was no longer needed. Just compare Duet. 23:1-3 to Isaiah 56:3-8, Eunichs are excluded to demonstrate God's holiness, but later that command is no longer necessary to accomplish that purpose and becomes obsolete. Looking at the reasons behind each command rather than just the letter is exactly what Jesus' does with the Sabbath. It explains why God's standards seem to change even though God Himself does not change, and why Christians are getting inked, they don't serve the same purpose anymore as when they were first commanded. Jesus even takes us a bit further to point out the principle of the law actually holds us to a higher standard. That's the entire purpose of the Sermon on the Mount, and over and over again in the rest of the gospels Jesus reiterates that God is more interesting the the underlying principles than rules themselves. To suggest a command that doesn't fit into God's underlying principle, love, is not only inconsistent, but unbiblical.
We have a great example left for us by the early church, circumcision. The only scriptures the church had were the Jewish scriptures which commanded circumcision as a sign of allegiance to God, and there was probably less wriggle room in scripture than this. The issue was over whether or not gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised. The Gentiles in question knew two things: they trusted Jesus and didn't want to take a knife to their manhood. Even Peter and Paul had a public confrontation about this (Gal 2:11-14). The churches ultimate decisions was is that it's following the rules for the sake of the rules.
There's always going to be great arguments on both sides, and that's where I think we need to look at the fruit of the relationship. Sin always shows itself, it promises good things, but never delivers. We sin as good because we think that's what we'll get out of it, but we never do. If same-sex relationships were sinful, we wouldn't need theological arguments to tell us that. The bad fruit from those relationships would be readily and clearly apparent. There are those in the gay community that do produce bad fruit, just like there are some heterosexuals that produce bad fruit from their heterosexual relationships and actions. If you ever met Christ-centered gay couple, you'll notice we're identical to our straight counterparts with the exception of one partner's sex. My own, and many other Christ-centered gay relationships are living proof of God's blessings on them. Bad trees cannot produce good fruit.
Disclaimer
These are merely my own personal views and opinions, shaped by prayer, experience, and study. I only encourage people to look at everything in context, don't be afraid to ask difficult questions, pray, but most importantly follow Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SnowyMacie
Well-Known Member
- Apr 12, 2011
- 17,007
- 6,087
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,669
- 19,838
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Can you live in sin and open rebellion against God and call yourself a Christian? You must repent of your sins to be saved, not give in to our lusts. Jude describes Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed due to sexual immorality. Jesus is part of the same Godhead who rained judgement on those cities and wasnt in disagreement.
Jesus took sexually immorality to another level. Just looking with lust is adultery. He told the sinner woman to go and sin no more. We need to repent and move away from our wicked ways, not embrace and try to justify them.
Jesus took sexually immorality to another level. Just looking with lust is adultery. He told the sinner woman to go and sin no more. We need to repent and move away from our wicked ways, not embrace and try to justify them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
William67
Member
nt
I think its the legalese by which you try to condone a sin. This is just as bad as the argument that God destroyed Sodom because the people there werent "hospitable".
The facts are these:
1 The Angels go to Sodom
2 Lot offers them lodging
3. The deviants tell Lot to send them out unto them so that they may "know them".
4. Lot begs them not to do anything to the Angels and offers his virgin daughters instead
5. The men of the town refuse and threaten to do to Lot what they intend upon doing to the Angels
6. The Angels strike them blind and Lot and his family flees Sodom
It had nothing to do with "side boys" or hospitality. Sodom was destroyed because of sin.
I think its the legalese by which you try to condone a sin. This is just as bad as the argument that God destroyed Sodom because the people there werent "hospitable".
The facts are these:
1 The Angels go to Sodom
2 Lot offers them lodging
3. The deviants tell Lot to send them out unto them so that they may "know them".
4. Lot begs them not to do anything to the Angels and offers his virgin daughters instead
5. The men of the town refuse and threaten to do to Lot what they intend upon doing to the Angels
6. The Angels strike them blind and Lot and his family flees Sodom
It had nothing to do with "side boys" or hospitality. Sodom was destroyed because of sin.
Upvote
0
SnowyMacie
Well-Known Member
- Apr 12, 2011
- 17,007
- 6,087
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
You're the one on the offensive here. All someone did was post their view.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
