Homosexuality is Slavery!

[AureateDawn]

While on the topic, I will just interject that ancient slavery was nothing at all like 17-19th century slavery (which was disgusting). Ancient slavery wasn't so bad.

 

[KCKID]

While on the topic, I will just interject that ancient slavery was nothing at all like 17-19th century slavery (which was disgusting). Ancient slavery wasn't so bad.

I take it then that YOU were an ancient slave?

 

[AureateDawn]

I take it then that YOU were an ancient slave?

Yes. I would have made it more clear, I just thought it was obvious enough.

 

[Macarius]

You might want to check your traditions…

Well slavery is a tradition…by your logic slavery must be an acceptable practice then.
Or will you declare that somehow magically ‘different’

You oversimplify the church's traditional approach to slavery. Are you actually a Catholic? You know this is the same era of tradition we're talking about, right? Roman society slavery does NOT equate to what most people concieve of as slavery.

None of which precludes same sex marriage

If you take it out of context it doesn't. It's called an introduction. Many issues, this one included, are complex, and complexity sometimes takes more than a soundbite reply to express. If I use multiple paragraphs, that doesn't mean each individual sentence has to be an independent reason to agree with me.

Do you agree then that our love, as human beings, is intended to be an icon and expression of the Divine Love of the Trinity on earth? That could be a good starting point.

not really

This was said in reply to my asserting that the marriage of man and wife was intended to be an icon of Christ and the Church. You assert, without warrant, counter analysis or explanation "not really." Wow. I must admit, I'm convinced...

In addition to this, you've managed to directly contradict St. Paul. Ephesians 5 is explicit on this point:

Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is head head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the Body. Therefore, just as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the Church. For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones.

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

Do you wish to disagree with Paul? How many times does he have to draw the parallel between Christ/Church and husband/wife before you'd agree that there's a correlative relationship between the two?

He even EXPLICITLY connect the Genesis prophecy with Christ/Church. Explicit, right at the end.

This same could be used as an argument against men (women apparels are not included in much of anything) leaving their parents and going off to school

I don't entirely follow you, but at the least this serves as an adaquette place to comment on something: it doesn't matter to me what one could use for an argument. I don't follow sola scriptura or anything close to it. The mere fact that one could twist a passage of scripture to say something silly is nothing new - nor is it problematic to me. I stick to as traditional an understanding as possible, and have faith that the teachings of the Church are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. If you doubt that, then you have forsaken Nicaene Christianity and we are probably done discussing this - not because I would judge you for that, but because faith in the Church is not something I can argue to you. It is a matter of faith. We'd just get ourselves twisted up saying the same thing trying to convince one another.

Suffice it to say that mitigating my point by trying to show other ways a given passage could be understood will not only fail to convince me, but also fails to take into account the complexities of how the scriptures are understood in the catholic-orthodox tradition. It is, like most of your replies, sound-bite-ish and simplistic.

Again…nothing excluding same sex marriage

Then you agree? Again, I'm setting up my point. It's important to establish and warrant one's premises before driving for a controversial and unassumed conclusion.

Which is why its run by men

YES. This is exactly why it is run by men. The Church is feminine by nature, and so the clergy, who are icons of Christ in Orthodox theology, are at the "head" theologically speaking. It is a man who hands out Eucharist, because the essence of Christ's role relative to the Church is expressed in masculinity, so the leaderhsip of the Church is male, while the Church proper (always the laity - we are not our clergy) is referred to as "she" consistently in the scriptures. Note the Ephesians passage above. Also note the entire book of Revelations.

I would focus on the Eucharist. There are two levels on which we as the Church are feminine. One is in our way of relating to our Lord - Jesus Christ. We submit to Him, He dies for us. That's the perfect, ego-less love I spoke of which is modeled in the Trinity and offered to us within the Church. Our duty is not to demand equality with God, but to submit to Him demanding nothing, and Christ, in His love, elevates us to "partake of the divine nature" (II Peter). We become as He is.

The second way, however, is physical. The eucharist is physical. Christ became man - He is a physical man. His bride is a woman. In what way does the Church physically show femininity? In the Eucharist. In the way that we become one body with our Lord (which, yes, is a reference to sex; to me sex is an icon of the Eucharistic union of Christ and Church). We accept Christ into ourself as a woman accepts her husband. We don't enter Christ's body with our body - Christ enters our body that we may become one with His body.

Does that help? I hope it does. It is that physical womanhood (along with the attribute of femininity) that so clearly ties the icon of marriage to the male-female relationship for me. It's about more than leadership within a relationship (since the Christian leadership is really about self-death and service anyway). It's about our way of loving Christ (submission in voluntary love) and our way of become one with Christ physically (by recieving His body into ourself).

I challenge you to find me a place in scripture where a presybter is referred to in the feminine or the Church referred to in the masculine. If you can find ONE passage in scripture or the early church fathers then you'd have a start on debunking this "gendering" of Christ/Church, clergy/laity, husband/wife. Otherwise, my point stands.

Recognize that marriage only became a sacrament about 700 years ago

Not remotely true. Christ attended and sanctified marriage at the wedding in Cana. The Church practiced a common chalice for civily married couples to bless their marriage during the first 300 years of the Church. Yes, it was later combined with the civil service of the Roman empire, but the idea of marriage entering the Church community and being blessed and fulfilled by it is extremely early.

Additionally, we don't number our sacraments. It has always been a sacrament in the East. John Chrysostom treats it like one in the late 4th century (a far cry from 700 years ago). Just because some RCC council or Pope in the middle ages felt it necessary to ennumerate the sacraments and included marriage in that list in the 700's doesn't mean that's where it began.

Regardless - all of life is a sacrament, ultimately. Marriage is just a unique one (like baptism and eucharist). Again, refer to the Ephesians passage. Heck, numerous Apostles were married.

I Timothy and Titus BOTH say that a bishop is to be a man MARRIED to ONE WIFE. Hebrews also explicitly affirmed marriage as appropriate. So do multiple of Paul's writings, even as they support and encourage celebacy.

It was condoned and blessed in the early church. Nicaea even EXPLICITLY stated that the marriage bed was undefiled and holy. Certain western "saints" (Jerome, I'm looking at you) gave sex a bad name, but their theology had almost no impact on the East outside of the already-celebacy-inclined monastic communities. There's a REASON we have married priests and deacons as the PRIMARY form of our presbytery and deaconate. We find marriage a perfectly viable sacramental road to Christ. This has always been the case for us.

…prior to that the church considered it a “necessary evil” and even after it was upgraded to sacrament weddings were not performed in churches because doing so would acknowledge that the people getting married would be having sex.

Refer to the above. You have a skewed, and my guess is Western-Centric, view of medieval theology. Check out the Byzantines. Were there anti-sex theologians? Sure. But EVERY ecumenical council continued the affirmation of the marriage bed, and churches were given the authority of civil marriages (done not outside the church but at the entrance) and sacramental marriage (performed at first merely by partaking of the same chalice at Eucharist; later the ceremony of crowning was added to this).

And this is why individuals who are sterile cannot and never have been able to get married…right?

The Church, in the sacraments, is the immediate joining of this world to the New Kingdom. It is the invasion of this fallen world with that perfect one. In this sense, it is of itself a miracle that we have sacraments. They bring us into a unique state of being - into contact with Christ and His Heaven.

That said, I think the iconography of the Church, as a window into Heaven, is helpful here. You'll notice that most physical infirmities are absent from icons (unless those icons depict a specific historical event, in which case they aren't so much looking at the present state of Heaven as at Heaven's [real and present] remembrance of a key event of salvation). In heaven, such products of the fall as physical ailments will be absent. Human mortality will be no more.

The Church is, therefore, eschatalogical in it's approach to the sacraments, and, in being eschatalogical it is deeply optimistic. The sacraments are acts of hope. So when we marry a man and a woman, we do so because ontologically - in an unfallen world - they'd be able to produce life from their iconically-eucharistic union. That is to say, we don't take into account the failures of the fallen world when partaking of sacraments precisely because those sacraments are not the matter of the fallen world.

It is precisely by refusing to allow the evil and suffering of this world to compromise, in ANY way, our actions or eschatalogical optimism, that we imitate Chirst on the cross.

In other words, we must look at the potential marriage couple from the perspective of the Kingdom (Without the lense of the fall) and see them as man and woman, capable of producing life. From that, it is up to God. The fall is indeed real, so when the sacrament is complete, perhaps there will be no children. But in our eschatalogical optimism and kingdom-oriented view...

All births are miracles. And the children of gay and lesbian couples especially so as they are not accidents but brought forth though the conscious effort of the child’s parents and through the parents love.

I agree that all births are miraculous, but I fail to see how a homosexual couple can concieve. You could do invetro-fertilization for a lesbian couple, but it would be with a sperm donor. Again, a gay couple could have a surrogate to carry the child to term, but you'd have to have a woman supply the egg. Thus far, to my knowledge, technology hasn't found a way around that. Given my point above about the sacraments being about ontology, my point stands since this a non-ontological conception (and not even truly a conecption by that couple proper, as person of another gender must supply the missing zygot).

Ultimately you are presenting a double standard. On the one hand you want to use fertility as a means to justify prejudice. While at the same time you wish to remove the issue of fertility from being a concern for the majority.

On a simplistic view, yes, I can see how that would be a double standard. I am speaking of ontological fertility, though - that is to say couples who, in the perfection of God's original design for this universe - would be able to reproduce. It's less about actual reproduction than it is about the fullness of the icon of Christ found in marriage.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

Pedophiles are as unable to change the object of their desire as any "normal" heterosexual or homosexual. That is to say, to them it feels as unavoidable as, say, skin tone. [/quote ]

False. Pedophiles are almost exclusively heterosexual and almost always involved in a sexual relationship with the mother of the child/children they are sexually abusing.




The fourth council of Toledo ruled that it was quite all right for Christians to own slaves. They however also found that it was wrong for Jews to own Christian slaves: “Jews should not be allowed to have Christian slaves nor to buy Christian slaves, nor to obtain them by the kindness of any one; for it is not right that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Anti-Christ.

This council also found it permissible for the church to make its own slaves deacons

What does pedophiles being hetero have anything to do with my point that their desire for sexual contact with children feels as unavoidable and un"cure"able to them as heterosexuality or homosexuality (of the normal variety) does for us?

My point had nothing to do with whether the person was a hetero or homo pedophile, merely that their sexual desire was so deeply socialized as to feel innate, even as OUR sexuality feels innate - like a skin tone.

That was my only point in that.

As for Toledo - why do I care about an obscure local council? There are countless false councils in the church's history. Show me an ecumenical one, and you'll be in business.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

It's ignorant to make statements about Protestants too.

Wait a sec, what ignorant statement did she make about Protestants? How well do you know Orthodoxy? And if you know the Orthodox way well, then why are you still a protestant?

 

[BigBadWlf]

While on the topic, I will just interject that ancient slavery was nothing at all like 17-19th century slavery (which was disgusting). Ancient slavery wasn't so bad.

Yeah…it was a walk in the park.

You are actually glorifying slavery. I don’t even know how to respond to this

 

[AureateDawn]

Yeah…it was a walk in the park.

You are actually glorifying slavery. I don’t even know how to respond to this

My, my. You are certainly one for twisting words, aren't you?

I'm still amazed that you got "glorifying" out of "not so bad".

But the topic of slavery is for another thread. After all, like Macarius said, it's an obscure local council, and it is certainly not a Ecumenical Council.

 

[BigBadWlf]

[/font]

You oversimplify the church's traditional approach to slavery. Are you actually a Catholic? You know this is the same era of tradition we're talking about, right? Roman society slavery does NOT equate to what most people concieve of as slavery.

Other than the fact you don’t want it to be comparable can you enlighten us as just who great and wonderful it was?

If you take it out of context it doesn't. It's called an introduction. Many issues, this one included, are complex, and complexity sometimes takes more than a soundbite reply to express. If I use multiple paragraphs, that doesn't mean each individual sentence has to be an independent reason to agree with me.

You mean like how some people choose to take bible verses out of context in an attempt to justify prejudice against homosexuals?

Do you agree then that our love, as human beings, is intended to be an icon and expression of the Divine Love of the Trinity on earth? That could be a good starting point.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Prejudice and discrimination are never acts of love

This was said in reply to my asserting that the marriage of man and wife was intended to be an icon of Christ and the Church. You assert, without warrant, counter analysis or explanation "not really." Wow. I must admit, I'm convinced...

I said the same thing after spending an hour going through your excessive verbiage. You could have summed it all up with “because I want it to be like this” and saved everyone a lot of time and eye strain

In addition to this, you've managed to directly contradict St. Paul. Ephesians 5 is explicit on this point:

Do you wish to disagree with Paul? How many times does he have to draw the parallel between Christ/Church and husband/wife before you'd agree that there's a correlative relationship between the two?

I don’t worship Paul. do you?

He even EXPLICITLY connect the Genesis prophecy with Christ/Church. Explicit, right at the end.

prophecy

I don't entirely follow you, but at the least this serves as an adaquette place to comment on something: it doesn't matter to me what one could use for an argument. I don't follow sola scriptura or anything close to it.

Well obviously the ONLY reason a man leaves his parent’s house is to get married to a woman. Thus a man going off to college is morally wrong…unless you want to now claim that there are reasons other than getting married to a woman that a man leaves his parent house

The mere fact that one could twist a passage of scripture to say something silly is nothing new - nor is it problematic to me. I stick to as traditional an understanding as possible, and have faith that the teachings of the Church are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. If you doubt that, then you have forsaken Nicaene Christianity and we are probably done discussing this

So I am not a true Christian unless I agree with you and your personal interoperations and personal views

- not because I would judge you for that, but because faith in the Church is not something I can argue to you. It is a matter of faith. We'd just get ourselves twisted up saying the same thing trying to convince one another.

But you just did judge

Suffice it to say that mitigating my point by trying to show other ways a given passage could be understood will not only fail to convince me, but also fails to take into account the complexities of how the scriptures are understood in the catholic-orthodox tradition. It is, like most of your replies, sound-bite-ish and simplistic.

You speak of complexities but then declare you and you alone (with the backing of some mysterious “tradition) to be the sole source of biblical truth. Needless to say your rant didn’t convince me neither did your flame.

Maybe if you had actually addressed the issues raised instead of opting for a simple attack in response

Then you agree? Again, I'm setting up my point. It's important to establish and warrant one's premises before driving for a controversial and unassumed conclusion.

Which does not preclude the fact that nothing you have said impacts any way on same sex marriage or explains why prejudice and discriminate are in any way acceptable

YES. This is exactly why it is run by men. The Church is feminine by nature, and so the clergy, who are icons of Christ in Orthodox theology, are at the "head" theologically speaking. It is a man who hands out Eucharist, because the essence of Christ's role relative to the Church is expressed in masculinity, so the leaderhsip of the Church is male, while the Church proper (always the laity - we are not our clergy) is referred to as "she" consistently in the scriptures. Note the Ephesians passage above. Also note the entire book of Revelations.

I would focus on the Eucharist. There are two levels on which we as the Church are feminine. One is in our way of relating to our Lord - Jesus Christ. We submit to Him, He dies for us. That's the perfect, ego-less love I spoke of which is modeled in the Trinity and offered to us within the Church. Our duty is not to demand equality with God, but to submit to Him demanding nothing, and Christ, in His love, elevates us to "partake of the divine nature" (II Peter). We become as He is.

The second way, however, is physical. The eucharist is physical. Christ became man - He is a physical man. His bride is a woman. In what way does the Church physically show femininity? In the Eucharist. In the way that we become one body with our Lord (which, yes, is a reference to sex; to me sex is an icon of the Eucharistic union of Christ and Church). We accept Christ into ourself as a woman accepts her husband. We don't enter Christ's body with our body - Christ enters our body that we may become one with His body.

Does that help? I hope it does. It is that physical womanhood (along with the attribute of femininity) that so clearly ties the icon of marriage to the male-female relationship for me. It's about more than leadership within a relationship (since the Christian leadership is really about self-death and service anyway). It's about our way of loving Christ (submission in voluntary love) and our way of become one with Christ physically (by recieving His body into ourself).

I challenge you to find me a place in scripture where a presybter is referred to in the feminine or the Church referred to in the masculine. If you can find ONE passage in scripture or the early church fathers then you'd have a start on debunking this "gendering" of Christ/Church, clergy/laity, husband/wife. Otherwise, my point stands.

You have a real problem with women don’t you?

Not remotely true. Christ attended and sanctified marriage at the wedding in Cana. The Church practiced a common chalice for civily married couples to bless their marriage during the first 300 years of the Church. Yes, it was later combined with the civil service of the Roman empire, but the idea of marriage entering the Church community and being blessed and fulfilled by it is extremely early.

Marriage was not mentioned as a sacrament until 1208 when Pope Innocent III declared it so in his Profession of Faith . worse for your point it was not a recognized sacrament until the Council of Trent in 1563. prior to 1563 anyone could officiate a marriage, only after the council of Trent did priests have to officiate.


For protestants marriage has never officially been a sacrament


"Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest"; and two pages further on: "Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." Martin Luther "De captivitate Babylonica"

The Church, in the sacraments,

snip

In simplistic and sound bite-ish words…double standard.

I agree that all births are miraculous, but I fail to see how a homosexual couple can concieve. You could do invetro-fertilization for a lesbian couple, but it would be with a sperm donor. Again, a gay couple could have a surrogate to carry the child to term, but you'd have to have a woman supply the egg. Thus far, to my knowledge, technology hasn't found a way around that. Given my point above about the sacraments being about ontology, my point stands since this a non-ontological conception (and not even truly a conecption by that couple proper, as person of another gender must supply the missing zygot).

So are you saying that heterosexuals who use the above mentioned methods to have children are somehow wrong or that they are not actually blessed with children?

Or are you expressing your double standard again?

 

[BigBadWlf]

What does pedophiles being hetero have anything to do with my point that their desire for sexual contact with children feels as unavoidable and un"cure"able to them as heterosexuality or homosexuality (of the normal variety) does for us?

My point had nothing to do with whether the person was a hetero or homo pedophile, merely that their sexual desire was so deeply socialized as to feel innate, even as OUR sexuality feels innate - like a skin tone.

That was my only point in that.

You stated that pedophilia was somehow a category of sexual orientation it is not. espically considering pedophiles are pretty much exclusively heterosexual

As for Toledo - why do I care about an obscure local council? There are countless false councils in the church's history. Show me an ecumenical one, and you'll be in business.

So you are declaring this recognized council as “false” because it dared to disagree with you?

 

[Polycarp1]

The bottom line here seems to be an assertion, "Everyone ought to be what I find satisfying for myself." Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike reject that approach, finding celibacy a grace given to some and not to others.

"I can't see why anybody would want ritual in their services; I don't like it." "I can't understand why people worship with contemporary praise songs; aren't the good old hymns enough?" "I'm called to celibacy, so therefore everybody else ought to be."

Thank God that He knows and loves us as we are, and grants grace to come to know and love Him, and live our lives, in the way suitable for us individually, and not as some would-be authority wishes to insist is right for all.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

So, whatever the motivation behind the act? You showing your love for your wife is exactly the same thing as raping a child? And yes, that is just exactly what you are saying about gays.

Whatever the motivation behind the act a sin by definition is wrong and error. Someone may do something not realising it is sin and wrong. As I said the sinful act is still wrog whatever the motivation. What you have done is miss the point I was making and focus on what I said was irrelevant.
Also showing love for my wife is what Jesus NT teaching indicates, raping a child is sex outside marriage, having just explained that can you not see the difference?

Most of the Christian gays on this forum would not disagree with most of that statement (the exception being the man-woman specification) about fornication.

then I would say most Christian gays on this forum don’t believe the passage Matt 19 as Jesus affirms the man/woman union as God’s created purpose. Jesus specifically doesn’t say when two people are joined, but when man and woman are joined.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear KCKID,

So, what DOES God want of us?

It depends which god. The moon god of Islam, Allah requires different things from the Judeo-Christian God and even Judaism and Christianity have two different covenants under God. If you want to know what followers of Jesus Christ believe, what God wants, is in the Bible, including of course the record of what God wants direct from His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear PolyCarp1,

The bottom line here seems to be an assertion, "Everyone ought to be what I find satisfying for myself." Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike reject that approach, finding celibacy a grace given to some and not to others.

yes to the first and no to the second. Yes the teaching of Christ requires that we seek to obey His teaching, not what satisfies us, and no, the grace of God through Christ is His undeserved favour, His grace ahs given to all of us who believe faithful man/woman marriage or celibacy.

… and live our lives, in the way suitable for us individually, and not as some would-be authority wishes to insist is right for all.

Not according to Jesus Christ. Sure Jesus Christ is always patient, loving and forgiving, and not wanting anyone to perish, but what you have said seems to be the exact opposite to what Jesus Christ teaches which is that people in the world rather than the Kingdom do what suits them as they please. If one just takes Matthew 28 and John 14-17 alone one can see Jesus says His disciples obey His teaching, and we are loved when we do so.

 

[KCKID]

[quoteKCKID]So, what DOES God want of us?[/quote]

Dear KCKID,
It depends which god. The moon god of Islam, Allah requires different things from the Judeo-Christian God and even Judaism and Christianity have two different covenants under God. If you want to know what followers of Jesus Christ believe, what God wants, is in the Bible, including of course the record of what God wants direct from His Son Jesus Christ. [/color]

It seems to me that a homosexual CAN live the life that God expects of them - believing in Jesus, loving neighbor as themselves, etc. - except that they happen to be 'gay'. Is their sexual predisposition the straw that breaks the camel's back in regard to what God wants of them?

Question: If a homosexual marries a woman and lives their life as a heterosexual but has homosexual fantasies during love-making ...is this STILL considered as 'sin'?

Hmmm . . .

 

[AureateDawn]

[Question: If a homosexual marries a woman and lives their life as a heterosexual but has homosexual fantasies during love-making ...is this STILL considered as 'sin'?

Hmmm . . .

... Yes.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear KCKID,

It seems to me that a homosexual CAN live the life that God expects of them - believing in Jesus, loving neighbor as themselves, etc. - except that they happen to be 'gay'. Is their sexual predisposition the straw that breaks the camel's back in regard to what God wants of them?

Of course, there are plenty of homosexuals who are living out the life that the God of the Bible wants of them, but the issue here is not loving one’s neighbour but sex within a marriage, both are living out what God wants.

For I believe that for any Christian one must take up their cross, whatever that is. Hearts and minds renewed for Christ change from being focused on what we desire, to what God desires.

 

[david_x]

Homosexuality is Slavery!




Homosexuality is slavery. Period. Those who are homosexual and act upon it are chaining themselves up to the Devil and to the world.

People who are gay...

Well, first, let me clarify. The verb "to be" is inappropriate. "I am gay" is a wrong statement; it does not define who I am (or you, or them, whatever). Saying "I/You struggle with same-sex attraction and passions" is more appropriate.

Anywho. Being gay in and of itself is not wrong. The bible makes it pretty clear that it's wrong... If anyone really needs me to point out that common Scriptures in "debating" homosexuality, I suppose I will.

Acting upon these same-sex passions, however, is very sinful. Same with opposite-sex passions--they must abstain from lust and other such. However, "homosexuals" struggle even moreso, unable to marry or date or any of that. Acting upon one's "gayness" is slavery in its highest form. Acting upon it means you are giving in, submitting to the Devil, and allowing him to place shackles on you and tie you down. This is slavery, with same-sex passions or with any other sin. It's pure slavery.

Jesus will set you free! Live a celibate life in secular society or in a monastery! Seek God! The cross we "homosexuals" bear is surely heavy, but God will give us nothing we cannot bear!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit, Amen.

Lord, have mercy.

We are all slaves. wether we chain ourselves to God or the devil is our only choice.

 

[catlover]

Homosexuality is slavery. Period. Those who are homosexual and act upon it are chaining themselves up to the Devil and to the world.

People who are gay...

Well, first, let me clarify. The verb "to be" is inappropriate. "I am gay" is a wrong statement; it does not define who I am (or you, or them, whatever). Saying "I/You struggle with same-sex attraction and passions" is more appropriate.

Anywho. Being gay in and of itself is not wrong. The bible makes it pretty clear that it's wrong... If anyone really needs me to point out that common Scriptures in "debating" homosexuality, I suppose I will.

Acting upon these same-sex passions, however, is very sinful. Same with opposite-sex passions--they must abstain from lust and other such. However, "homosexuals" struggle even moreso, unable to marry or date or any of that. Acting upon one's "gayness" is slavery in its highest form. Acting upon it means you are giving in, submitting to the Devil, and allowing him to place shackles on you and tie you down. This is slavery, with same-sex passions or with any other sin. It's pure slavery.

Jesus will set you free! Live a celibate life in secular society or in a monastery! Seek God! The cross we "homosexuals" bear is surely heavy, but God will give us nothing we cannot bear!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit, Amen.

Lord, have mercy.

According to some here slavery is perfectly acceptable--

 

[AureateDawn]

I just wanted to bring this back up. The OP still speaks the Truth, regardless of how difficult it might be to accept it (I find it hard, as well... truly, the path is straight and narrow indeed). I do not say these things out of malice, but out of love. All too often I seek the false happiness and desire to fall in love with a man. But I cannot escape the reality of God, and I try to seek true happiness and true joy found only in Christ. I pray that y'all seek it as well.