Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,141
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟77,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What exactly is "homosexual acceptance"? Acceptance is an abstract noun without a sexual orientation or ability to perform sex acts. If you mean, "acceptance of homosexual people," take a good look at Scripture and let me know who it says a Christian should kick to the ground and spit on.

If you use I Cor. 6:9 to say you don't want them in your church, that's fine; it's your loss. But that is not what we are talking about in this thread.

Keep them out? You missed one vital part of that passage...

1 Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That part is being denied a lot of the time now.. now that those who wish to refuse God's will for their lives have found ways to rationalize away the power of God's grace to transform.

.
 
Upvote 0

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟9,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Got any etymological source to back up this assertion? Cos mine disagrees with you. "From Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry", literally “give in marriage’”), from maritus (“‘lover", "nuptial’”), from mas (“‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex’”) [1]"

And you'd be wrong. The word "Matrimony" and has nothing to do with the word for "women". In Latin "mater" is mother, not "matri".

Seriously... how many pre-Christian latin examples would you like me to show you where they discuss marriage using the word "maritare" before either Jesus or Mary were even born?

See post 926.

:rollseyes: I said the word marry comes from the French word to marie, not the Latin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟9,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It could have something to do with God speaking to people on their level, and by the time the Bible was canonized, no one still had any idea of homosexual orientation, so God did not speak to them about it because it would've been too far over their head. If they had known of homosexual orientation, the Bible might say things differently regarding same gendered relationships (then again, it might not, for that matter, we simply just don't know).

No, it says Yeshua came at the appointed time.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Hey enemy party:

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

What was your response to this verse, it's been awhile and I forgot how it was mistranslated.

Thx,
vV\/Vv
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hey enemy party:

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

What was your response to this verse, it's been awhile and I forgot how it was mistranslated.

Thx,
vV\/Vv
Exchanging natural acts for unnatural is when a heterosexual has homosexual sex, or, and this is important, when a homosexual has heterosexual sex. I know you'd like to think that "unnatural" in this case means "homosexual", but I see absolutely no reason to believe that is the case.

As for men committing indecent acts with other men, well, they shouldn't have done that. Who says that this passage is refering to homosexuality per ce, or especially to homosexuals engaged in monogomous long term committed relationships.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then "un-natural" becomes only to do something against that which one feels is naturally desired?
Doesn't that make the most sense? Doesn't require all the mental contortions and word definitions required to make "unnatural" equate with "homosexual".
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
64
Left coast
✟77,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But that leads me then to ask what else we could call "natural" as long as someone feels they naturally desire it (and of course no one harmed or animal hurt - though we could ask why that is necessarily a factor)?
And if they stop desiring it, does it then become un-natural for them to do it?

So basically what is right or wrong for anyone may be dependent on what they feel they naturally desire, perhaps at the moment. Is that correct?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
But that leads me then to ask what else we could call "natural" as long as someone feels they naturally desire it (and of course no one harmed or animal hurt - though we could ask why that is necessarily a factor)?
And if they stop desiring it, does it then become un-natural for them to do it?

So basically what is right or wrong for anyone may be dependent on what they feel they naturally desire, perhaps at the moment. Is that correct?
Um, sort of... although thats an awfully convoluted way to put it.

Its right for you to do whats natural for you, so long as it complies with the "love thy neighbour as thyself" commandment. I.e. if you feel like doing something, and everyone with a reasonable consideration in the matter consents, its OK to do. I sincerely believe you CAN NOT sin within that paradigm.
 
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

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
64
Left coast
✟77,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would have to agree that if it was ok (not wrong) that everyone did what they felt they naturally desired then there would be no sin. Am afraid however that having a such subjective and relative moral compass could lead almost anywhere without limit.

In my own experience my feelings about right and wrong have changed at times, and I know my desires often conflict with those feelings. So if it is true that my feelings about my natural desires are to be my moral compass, I would be concerned about being able to get anywhere. Maybe I miss the point.

Is the goal/purpose for having a moral compass to be concerned about where I am going, whether I am on the right path or not; or is it just the journey at the moment (more like a fun meter rather than a compass)?

And it occurs to me that as far a general purpose/meaning of life level thing; that we should all be heading in the same direction, and that direction aided or hindered by our choices between doing right or wrong. But how can that be true if each of our moral compasses are not only shifting with our individual desires of the moment, but also pointing in opposite directions from person to person?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I would have to agree that if it was ok (not wrong) that everyone did what they felt they naturally desired then there would be no sin. Am afraid however that having a such subjective and relative moral compass could lead almost anywhere without limit.

In my own experience my feelings about right and wrong have changed at times, and I know my desires often conflict with those feelings. So if it is true that my feelings about my natural desires are to be my moral compass, I would be concerned about being able to get anywhere. Maybe I miss the point.

Is the goal/purpose for having a moral compass to be concerned about where I am going, whether I am on the right path or not; or is it just the journey at the moment (more like a fun meter rather than a compass)?

And it occurs to me that as far a general purpose/meaning of life level thing; that we should all be heading in the same direction, and that direction aided or hindered by our choices between doing right or wrong. But how can that be true if each of our moral compasses are not only shifting with our individual desires of the moment, but also pointing in opposite directions from person to person?
Its late and I'm tired, so maybe I'm not reading you right... but I think you're over thinking this.

Can you maybe try to think of an example where doing something you naturally desire, that all other parties with a reasonable claim in the issue have consented to, is going to be something you later consider to have been "wrong"?

And we're not talking about regreting a night out on the turps here... sure, you may REGRET it the next day, but thats not the same as having a sense of having done something morally wrong.

anyway, think I'm going to call it quits for the evening, so no rush, take your time, think of an example where a natural desire that is consented to by all parties would later be considered wrong, and we can discuss it tommorrow.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
64
Left coast
✟77,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I guess am trying to say if we have a moral compass at all, then just like a real compass, it has to be pointing to something external to me rather than be subject to my feelings. Otherwise such a compass could not be relied on to get me anywhere.

Having a reference external to me and assuming we all have the same compass, I cannot imagine how it could be true that my feelings about whether my desires are natural or not should effect my compass. Nor could I imagine my compass pointing out something as wrong - away from it - while another person's compass says the same thing is right.

As long the person desiring it can say no harm is being done, how can we say using such a definition of "natural" desire ecludes what they desire to do?

There would be seem to be no limit for the range of acts individuals might feel are natural. And that definition need not include factors like pain or harm as some people "naturally" find pleasure in those things (whether giving or recieving).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,141
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟77,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Exchanging natural acts for unnatural is when a heterosexual has homosexual sex, or, and this is important, when a homosexual has heterosexual sex. I know you'd like to think that "unnatural" in this case means "homosexual", but I see absolutely no reason to believe that is the case.

As for men committing indecent acts with other men, well, they shouldn't have done that. Who says that this passage is refering to homosexuality per ce, or especially to homosexuals engaged in monogomous long term committed relationships.

What does perversion mean?

Does perversion mean only in one area of thinking? Or, does perversion overflow into all aspects of facing truth? What do you say?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It might be worthwhile for anyone trying to dissect the meaning of Romans 1:26-27 to actually look at what Paul's point in writing Romans was, to whom it was addressed, what else besides the "inflamed with lust" is said of the people portrayed in the surrounding verses, why they are described in that way, how they are compared and contrasted with the letter's recipients, and what Paul's point in explaining all this was, in a question of soteriological theology.

It's not a "pull it out of context and use it to blast them evil gays for their perverse ways" prooftext -- Paul is positing it as part and parcel of a description of a specific group of individuals, to make the point to his readers that they are saved by God's grace and not by their own rigteousness or even their own efforts to believe.
 
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

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,141
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟77,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's not a "pull it out of context and use it to blast them evil gays for their perverse ways" prooftext --

The point was... They were not found to be with evil ways because they were gay. They were made to be gay by God because of their evil ways of thinking.

Its a message in Romans 1, to those who can see below the surface, to note that homosexuality is not simply a sexual orientation. The sexual expression is only symptomatic of a way of evil thinking. Evil, because it desires to find ways to distort God's design and intent. So, God hands them over to become living distortions of God's intent and design to be found in themselves.

Now.. we also must be careful in rightly designating whom Romans 1 speaks of. It speaks of the militant aggressive type homosexuals. The ones that are apologists and evangelists to spread the acceptance of their perversity. It does not speak of those whom along the way that were forced and seduced into this form of sexual expression, as to condition them into a way of life. For there are those who do get saved and are able (willing) to be transformed by grace and God's truth, back to a proper orientation to both reality and their sexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:11
"And that is what some of you were.
But you were washed, you were sanctified
, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by
the Spirit of
our God."

That speaks of those who had been oppressed, victimized, and conditioned by the perverted Romans 1 type. These believers were able to become transformed out of their old way of conditioned homosexual life style into the life all believers are to have in Christ.



2 Corinthians 3:18

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory,
are being transformed into his likeness with ever
increasing
glory, which comes from the Lord,
who is the Spirit."




Anyone who claims to be a believer, and yet claims God approves of homosexual relations as long as they appear to be counterfeiting heterosexual marriage? Is perverting the character and nature of Christ.


1 Corinthians 5:9
"I have written you in my letter not to associate
with sexually immoral people."

Anyone that claims God now approves of homosexuality as long as its monogamous. Is like a prostitute who claims God approves because she gives a great deal of his money to charity to do good. I can not avoid the negative connotation involved with the topic, since the Word of God calls homosexual expression an abomination in God's eyes.

Paul stated that even though we are no longer under the law. The Law that would demand such as those to be put to death. Paul qualified them as being still worthy (in God's estimation) of death.





Romans 1:32
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those
who do such things deserve death, they not only continue
to do these very things but also approve of those
who practice them."


We are no longer under Law. Paul did not demand they be executed. That does not mean God's Law was originally created on whim. What God saw as sexual immorality and worthy of punishment, was not based upon whim. It was based upon God's holiness and righteousness.


In Christ, GeneZ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Exchanging natural acts for unnatural is when a heterosexual has homosexual sex, or, and this is important, when a homosexual has heterosexual sex. I know you'd like to think that "unnatural" in this case means "homosexual", but I see absolutely no reason to believe that is the case.

As for men committing indecent acts with other men, well, they shouldn't have done that. Who says that this passage is refering to homosexuality per ce, or especially to homosexuals engaged in monogomous long term committed relationships.

I have my reservations about this interpretation, but i'll let it rest for now.

I have another question for you then: Would you restrain your hearts/ loins desire if your mother/grandmother, pastor/church elder, or other esteemed servant of the lord asked you to?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
What does perversion mean?

Does perversion mean only in one area of thinking? Or, does perversion overflow into all aspects of facing truth? What do you say?
[per·ver·sion (p
schwa.gif
r-vûr
prime.gif
zh
schwa.gif
n, -sh
schwa.gif
n)
n. 1. a. The act of perverting.
b. The state of being perverted.

2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant./QUOTE]I know what it means. Don't think it has anything to do with homosexuality.

In fact, I don't think there are many sexual practices at all that can accurately be described as "perversion". Sure, a few of the paraphilias that can be traced to an actual neurological impairment possibly qualify as a "perversion", but even them, the person displaying the condition should be treated as a suferer of a condition, not as a willing participant.
 
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

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have my reservations about this interpretation, but i'll let it rest for now.

I have another question for you then: Would you restrain your hearts/ loins desire if your mother/grandmother, pastor/church elder, or other esteemed servant of the lord asked you to?
Nope. Would you?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.