Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

[LightHorseman]

You forget (or ignore) one vitally important part of Jesus ministry.



Paul simply stood by... "Go and sin no more."

You call that exclusionary for him? But not for Jesus?

Paul certainly seems more exclusionary to me than Jesus, but I digress. "Go and sin no more" thats fine... but I still don't think being a homosexual counts as being wuillfully sinful to the point one need be excluded from the Church.

Your own society? I see you have not traveled much and gotten to know the people around the world. There are besmirching words for homosexuals in every language and culture. Old and contemporary. Its not a thing that is exclusive and new to where you live. And, not is it as bad as you make it seem in America.

I never said it was new or exclusive to where I live. It is simply an injustice that I am aware of, both here and in America.

When you help an injured homosexual? Do you tell him about Christ and needing salvation? How otherwise is he to know you are doing it out of your love for Christ?

No, I don't take the opportunity to help people as an opportunity to brow beat them with my religion. The Mathew 25 passage doesn't mention visiting prisoners or the sick and using it as a chance to evangelise, its purely discussing "good works" among the forgotten and disadvantaged.

You say homosexuals are persecuted today? What ever happened to Miss California? All she did was to state her belief. All she did was answer to a question asking for her belief. Persecution has taken a new shift.

I don't think being denied the right to marry the person you love, frequent violence, job discrimination, real estate discrimination and a zillion other examples are REMOTELY comparable to some dumb beauty queen, who broke the rules of the competition ANYWAY, loosing some silly pageant. What happened to Mathew Shepherd is persecution. What the Westboro Baptists do is persecution. What happened before the Stonewall riots is persecution What happened to Miss California is utterly insignificant minutiae. Would that ALL discrimination and persecution were as "harsh" as that suffered by "Miss California"

In case you have forgotten. Jesus personally bore the sins of every act of sodomy on the Cross.

Says you. Assuming "sodomy" is a sin that is. But... IF you believe that, that Jesus personally suffered and attoned for every act of "sodomy"... then obviously homosexuals are covered by the new covenent, and don't need to be excluded, right? Christ already attoned for them. Their debt is paid by Christ. So who do you think YOU are trying to make them continue paying a debt that Christ already paid in full? Hmmm?

.

 

[GenemZ]

Because I see homosexuals as wrongly persecuted. I am a nurse, and former soldier... I stop at car accidents to help or render first aid. I don't claim to be perfect, far from it. I'm as great a sinner as any here. But I sincerely believe that any act of kindness, charity or aid is an act towards Christ himself (Mathew 25:35, 36). I believe that by trying to convince people to stop persecuting homosexuals, I am doing Christ's work.

I do what I can for other oppressed people too, where I can, but in my own society, homosexuals are one of the most glaring cases.

Do you believe if there were no Bible? That homosexuals would be accepted more than they are today?

Do you believe that there were no God and no plan for redemption? That homosexuals would be much more accepted than they are today?




.

 

[LightHorseman]

Absolutely transparent!
You have a very small god in a very narrow field of vision. Grace is not unconditional. You yourself live a lifestyle that is unbiblical, so you defend other who do the same. I base this on many things you have said.

I believe in a small God with a narrow field of vision? I'M not the one who thinks he gets overly worked up about which orifice who sticks what into!

You yourself live a lifestyle that is unbiblical, so you defend other who do the same. I base this on many things you have said.

I live a lifestyle that is unbiblical? Just who the heck are you to judge me? You nothing about my lifestyle!

I base this on many things you have said.

Like I what? I try to help those less fortunate than me? I don't contort myself into knots trying to justify persecution and condemnation of others with the Bible, while missing Christ's central message?

You seem caught up in what is natural:

YOU were the one claiming "homosexuality is bad 'cos iz unnatural"... and NOW you want to tell me that what is NATURAL is what is sinful? Well that pretty much covers everything doesn't it. If its natural, its sinful. If its UNnatural, its sinful. Well talk abbout darned if you do, darned if you don't!

Let go of the natural and embrace the spiritual and you will gain knowledge and wisdom.

If you're so concerned about the spiritual, why are you so desperate to condemn people based on their PHYSICAL acts?

 

[GenemZ]

Paul certainly seems more exclusionary to me than Jesus, but I digress. "Go and sin no more" thats fine... but I still don't think being a homosexual counts as being wuillfully sinful to the point one need be excluded from the Church.

I attended a big church for years where gays were welcome as anyone else. I knew most of them personally. They were not excluded. But homosexual activity was no more tolerated than fornication was. You want churches to look the other way with homosexual sin but to continue to condemn heterosexual sin?

How can that be? I do not think you have been in a real church. One that teaches the Word of God. I think you are condemning a church of your own imagination.



.

 

[LightHorseman]

Are you really Catholic? Why do you say you are Catholic? You sound nothing like a Catholic should.

I was born, baptised and confirmed a Catholic, attend a Catholic Church, and intend to die and be buried a Catholic. Thanks all the same, but I'll take criticism on my Catholicism from other Catholics thanks.

Are you really a male? A Catholic? I ask that because obviously you claim to be Catholic. You are nothing you claim to be.

Well I'm sorry you think that. Want my phone number? You can call me and find out if you like. Want me to dig out my baptism certificate? How about the photos of me serving as an altar boy?

Its only "natural" to ask such a question since no good Catholic would say the things you have been in this thread. And, we all know lying is a sin. We all know that. You say you are a Catholic but totally misrepresent Catholic belief.

What do you think I said that "no good Catholic would"? That I believe in doing good works? That I believe in worrying about my own sin and not judging others? Help me out here.

You claim to be Catholic. You may have been brought up in a Catholic home, but you aint no Catholic.

https://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp


Homosexuality

I do not believe your credibility is sound. If you came here as an atheist you would have held more credibility than what you claim for yourself now.

I'm not an athiest, and I'd be lying if I claimed to be one. I'm sorry I don't fit into YOUR view of what a Catholic should be, but thats your problem, not mine. My faith is a matter for me and God. What YOU think of my Catholicism or otherwise is utterly irrelevant to my eternal salvation.

I am in not Catholic. I know Catholics. You do not represent anything that the Catholic church teaches. Yet? You say you are Catholic? Its just a label, not a reality. Reality is a spiritual issue, as well.

Where the heck did I claim to speak for that Catholic church? Hmmm? Nowhere. I KNOW that some of what I believe may be at odds with certain minor elements of church doctrine. But you know what? Doctrine has changed before, it may well change again in the future. Nowhere does Catholicism demand one not have personal opinions.

.[/quote]

 

[Jadin Xquire]

LightHorseMan:I think I can connect homosexual acts with sexual immorality through the OT and the NT. I found something interesting.....

Lets observe the OT passages.....

Genesis 19 (New International Version)

Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."



It is clear that in this passage these men that lived in Sodom, Young and Old, are homosexuals because they totally mistaken these angels as men. They want to have sex!



LightHorseman: Do you deny that these men are homosexuals? Even though it does not state "Homosexual" what would there actions say they are? What would you call a man wanting to have sex with another man? That sounds like homosexuality to me even if the word "Homosexuality" isn't mentioned. That is when inductive reason is an essentual tool to use. Maybe the word "Homosexual" was a different word in that day. In Grecko-Roman times calling a person a fox was the same as saying "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]".


Please note I don't encourage Gay-bashing. I'm trying to make a point. Continuing......


Jesus did it. He told king Herod he was a "fox". In the way he did it is interesting. It might have been an insult with injury when Jesus said it. I'm sure Herod was angry to be called a fox when he heard it from the messengers. Since Jesus could read minds because he is God then I guess Herod was a Homosexual.



Luke 13:31-32 (New International Version)

Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem

31At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you." 32He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'


Now how does the homosexual acts in Gen 19:1-5 considered Sexual Immorality? The answer is Jude 1:7.


Jude 1:7 (New International Version)

7In 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.


To tie everything together......We know that in Gen 19:1-5 the young and old men, of the Sodom, wanted the angels for sex. Since they thought the angels were men that indicates they were homosexuals as we understand the concept of homosexuality in today's times.


In Jude 1:7, Jude states that Sodom and Gomorrah and the nearby towns gave themselves into what? Sexual Immorality. To be specific, Homosexuality. Since this is proof that Homosexuality is considered Sexual Immorality to the Apostle Jude then we can safely say that Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 5 are about Homosexual acts.


Now it is more than just homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 5. Since Paul saids Sexual Immorality out in Broad(Not being specific) we would have to include all types of Sexual Immorality: Physical Adultery,Mental or Internal Adultery(Jesus states it in Matthew 5:27-30 This could also apply to hetero- or homosexual internal lust or desire to have sex with another person.), Incest, Fornication, Homosexuality, etc.....



If a Christian, who is proud to dilibertly sin out in the open in Sexual Immorality, with out any care, is under Judgment by Christians abroad. Paul judges these particle Christians. He doesn't judge the ones in the world or the ones the Christians who struggle with sin. He judges the Christians who are proud in their Sexual Immorality. If any Christians that read this is proud of their Homosexual acts and is open about it and is not wanting to go through sanctification by God will be judge by your fellow Christians. I do not Gay Bash. I don't judge the world. The world can be the way they want to be. That is God's job to judge them. It would not be righteous of me to take that type of responsibility and play God in judging all. I am not worthy for that task.



My point should be clear with all the evidence. LightHorseman what are your thoughts now? Am I wrong anywhere in this post? If I am please point it out. If you disagree not only say "You are wrong" but say "You are wrong because Gen 19:1-5 and Jude 1:7 is really about...." ~Thank you

 

[LightHorseman]

I attended a big church for years where gays were welcome as anyone else. I knew most of them personally. They were not excluded. But homosexual activity was no more tolerated than fornication was. You want churches to look the other way with homosexual sin but to continue to condemn heterosexual sin?

I'm not asking anyone to condone ANY sin. I am putting forward the idea that not all homosexuality IS sin. Can you get your head around that? You can condemn non monogomous hetero and homosexuals equally. You can condemn violent or abusive hetero or homosexuals equally. I'm sure there are just as many sinful homosexuals as heterosexuals. But my point is that simply being homosexual is NOT necesarily a sin.

In fact, since you are so worried about my being a good Catholic, maybe you should research the bloody catechism a bit, and you'd know that not even the Catholic church condemns homosexuality, and accepts that some people are naturally homosexual.

How can that be? I do not think you have been in a real church. One that teaches the Word of God. I think you are condemning a church of your own imagination.

And I think you are incredibly small minded and can't comprehend that people might try to follow Christ any way other than the incredibly narrow, convoluted, legalistic and condemnatory fashion that you have chosen for yourself.

 

[LightHorseman]

Jadin, you are so wrong you can't even see right from where you are. Want a discussion, or do you just want to quote massive chunks of text at me?

Suffice to say, you'll note God had decided to destroy Sodom long BEFORE the incident with the angels.

Further, I suggest you consider this... what do you think was the worse crime there.... that the people of Sodom wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels, or that they wanted to have NONCONSENTUAL (i.e. rape) homosexual sex with them?

Destroying a town of rapists? Yep, I can see that. Destroying a town for being homosexual? Nope, doesn't fly, since homosexuality doesn't breach the "love thy neighbour as thyself" commandment, but rape CERTAINLY does.

 

[Jadin Xquire]

Jadin, you are so wrong you can't even see right from where you are. Want a discussion, or do you just want to quote massive chunks of text at me?

Suffice to say, you'll note God had decided to destroy Sodom long BEFORE the incident with the angels.

Further, I suggest you consider this... what do you think was the worse crime there.... that the people of Sodom wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels, or that they wanted to have NONCONSENTUAL (i.e. rape) homosexual sex with them?

Destroying a town of rapists? Yep, I can see that. Destroying a town for being homosexual? Nope, doesn't fly, since homosexuality doesn't breach the "love thy neighbour as thyself" commandment, but rape CERTAINLY does.

Ya but the young and old were convinced of Sodom though the angels were men. Young and Old were convinced the angels were men. They wanted to have sex with the angels on the intention they thought the angels were men. Not because they knew they were angels, because they thought the angels were men. They wanted sex from new blood in the city. The Young and Old knew these "men/angels" were not from that city, Sodom. So they lusted into wanting sex with these "men/angels" from out of town.

My point is the Apostle Jude recognizes this story very well. He states "Sexual Immorality" as the actions within the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This proves that Homosexual acts are under the definition of Sexual Immorality. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 talks about not to even be around Christians who are proud of doing Sexual Immorality.

The Apostle worked under the same spirit: Holy Spirit. If Jude recognizes Homosexual acts are in the category of Sexual Immorality I'm sure Paul and all the other Apostle agreed. They are all under the direction of the same spirit: Holy Spirit. Out of the Apostles who knew the law better than Paul? He was trained since from his youth. He knew the Tanakh/OT from front to back. He, just like Jude, believes proud homosexual acts from a Christian is wrong. That is why in 1 Corinthians 5 he judges all Christians who indulge in this sin(s) after they accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is wrong to diligently continue in sin after deciding to be a Christian.

Sure we have Christians who struggle with Homosexuality, but the difference with these Christians and Christians who sin willfully with out care is the ones who struggle are trying to make a difference in their lives. They are trying to better their relationship with God. So-called Christians are judge by righteous Christians as Paul writes it in 1 Corinthians 5. After a person accepts Christ then Sanctification process should take place. It might take a while but the person has to be willing to go under God's Sanctification. God will not force anyone to go under that process. If a person, after accepting Christ is not willing to go under sanctificantion then that is lawlessness.

As Jesus states (paraphrase)"Those who practice lawlessness will be thrown into hell/lake of fire(second death)". God is love but he is also Just. God is a Judge. Those who do not keep God's commandments do not love God. They will be worthy of God's wrath.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ya but the young and old were convinced of Sodom though the angels were men. Young and Old were convinced the angels were men. They wanted to have sex with the angels. Not because they knew they were angels, because they thought the angels were men. They wanted sex from new blood in the city. The Young and Old knew these "men/angels" were not from that city, Sodom. So they lusted into wanting sex with these "men/angels" from out of town.

Yes, I realise that but... how can I make it simpler... was wanting to have sex with them the problem, or wanting to FORCE them to have sex the problem?

 

[Jadin Xquire]

Yes, I realise that but... how can I make it simpler... was wanting to have sex with them the problem, or wanting to FORCE them to have sex the problem?

Both are wrong. Premeditated Lust before actions is consider Adultery as Jesus states it in Matthew 5:27-30.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Matthew 5:27-30;

Jesus states and implies that mental adultery will send a person to Hell.
Sin happens before a person can act on the sin. It starts in the mind. When a person lustfully thinks of wanting another person(Homosexual or Heterosexual) then Jesus states it is the same as Adultery.

Last time I check Adultery is also under Sexual Immorality. So Gen 19:1-5 and Jude 1:7, Apostle Jude saids homosexuality is under Sexual Immorality.

Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 states that lustful thinking has the same wieght as Adultery. I called this Mental or Internal Adultery.

With the NT alone it is hard to say Homosexualilty is in Sexual Immorality because it doesn't specifically say it. That is why we have to look from all points of every angle from OT to NT. Either way you see it.....Homosexuality is part of Sexual Immorality. Jesus' and Jude's claims it together being a double-wami! Paul even goes futher to state it is disgraceful for a Christian to be proud in Sexual Immorality(Homosexuality).

So with all the evidence Christians who practice Homosexuality and are proud of it are doomed to Hell unless they change their ways and go under the sanctification of God.

 

[LightHorseman]

Both are wrong. Premeditated Lust before actions is consider Adultery as Jesus states it in Matthew 5:27-30.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Matthew 5:27-30;


Sin happens before a person can act on the sin. It starts in the mind. When a person lustfully thinks of wanting another person(Homosexual or Heterosexual) then Jesus states it is the same as Adultery.

Last time I check Adultery is also under Sexual Immorality. So Gen 19:1-5 and Jude 1:7, Apostle Jude saids homosexuality is under Sexual Immorality.

Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 states that lustful thinking has the same wieght as Adultery. I called this Mental or Internal Adultery.

With the NT alone it is hard to say Homosexualilty is in Sexual Immorality because it doesn't specifically say it. That is why we have to look from all points of every angel from OT to NT. Either way you see it.....Homosexuality is part of Sexual Immorality. Jesus' and Jude's claims it together being a double-wami! Paul even goes futher to state it is disgraceful for a Christian to be proud in Sexual Immorality(Homosexuality).

So with all the evidence Christians who practice Homosexuality and are proud of it are doomed to Hell unless they change their ways and go under the sanctification of God.

I disagree with you.

Did you look at that site I sent you the other day? It explains that there are several very, very convincing arguments aginst what you've just said.

Are you open minded enough to even consider that someone else might have a better understanding of this than you do, or is it a case of whatever I say, you'll continue trying to justufy your initial stance, rather than attempting to understand the other person's POV? I ask only because I've had several similar discussions in the past, and I'd like to save us both some time if you aren't going to listen to anything I have to say.

 

[timlamb]

I believe in a small God with a narrow field of vision? I'M not the one who thinks he gets overly worked up about which orifice who sticks what into!I live a lifestyle that is unbiblical? Just who the heck are you to judge me? You nothing about my lifestyle! Like I what? I try to help those less fortunate than me? I don't contort myself into knots trying to justify persecution and condemnation of others with the Bible, while missing Christ's central message?YOU were the one claiming "homosexuality is bad 'cos iz unnatural"... and NOW you want to tell me that what is NATURAL is what is sinful? Well that pretty much covers everything doesn't it. If its natural, its sinful. If its UNnatural, its sinful. Well talk abbout darned if you do, darned if you don't!If you're so concerned about the spiritual, why are you so desperate to condemn people based on their PHYSICAL acts?

OK, to cover things one at a time.
You have said drugs are not bad, homosex is not bad, you have indicated you live with a woman without benifit of marriage; you have said outright that nothing is wrong unless it hurts another. Jesus has said to harm your own body is a sin, to think the wrong thing is a sin, to worship the wrong things is a sin. You condone things the bible doesn't, therefore, I am able to say, you live outside biblical teaching.

As far as the natural vs. unnatural thing, yes, that gets confusing, but we ARE talking about two definitions here. I quoted scripture that states homosex is an un-natural use of the body, you say homosex IS a natural use of the body. You then justify your claim by pointing to man made things and calling them un-natural.

to clarify, mans nature may allow for homosex, because sin is natural to man. But, mans body was not intended to be used for homosex, any highschool anatomy studant could tell you that, so that is an unnatural use of the body. You called things natural, so I pointed out that the natural man is sinful. The flesh should be used as intended, or natural. the nature of man is flesh and should be overcome with spirit.

I think you know these things and just got flustered and challenged me but the Bible isn't THAT hard to read is it?

On the last thing, judgment, I grow weary of people calling it judgmental to say, "that is a sin, because the bible says so". You are every bit as "judgmental" when you say we are wrong to point out sin, you judge us for that. So what is the difference. If I WAS judging and doing my best to condemn you to hell, would that make your sin less? NO! So the whole arguement is a circular one. If I point at a convicted killer and call him a murderer, and he says I'm going to hell for my judgment, is he any more right with God? If I tell you to quit lusting, or to marry that woman you sleep with, are you less sinful if I don't say it, did I judge you by saying it?

If I've dealt with my sin, I am in a position to help my brother with his speck. If you are not a brother I am doing right to say "Repent! and be saved, be washed in the Blood".

Identifying sin is a responsibility, so long as your sight is good with the sin in your eye taken care of.

 

[Jadin Xquire]

I have taken that into consideration, but even when lustful thinking commences before physical homosexual acts start this is considered Adultery. Mental Adultery to be specific. Just thinking lustfully could send a person to hell.

Question LightHorseMan: Is Adultery within the boundaries of Sexual Immorality?

 

[timlamb]

Are you open minded enough to even consider that someone else might have a better understanding of this than you do, or is it a case of whatever I say, you'll continue trying to justufy your initial stance, rather than attempting to understand the other person's POV?

Are you?

 

[Jadin Xquire]

LightHorseMan: I don't know if you are sleeping with that woman. If you are then do right by marrying her. Technically if you are rebellious and don't make it right by marrying that girl, assuming you are having relations with her, then 1 Corinthians 5 Paul Judges you. I mean this with love....From a Brother in Christ type of love: Get it right with God and marry that girl. I have my urges too but I stop having open sex with females since of April 2008. I do struggle with sins but I took out my speck of open sex with females. That is out of my life. So I can righteously tell you to get it right. You have your chance with God to do so. If you refuse to marry that girl and are doing Sexual Immorality and are proud of doing what you are doing then judgment comes on you by your Christian brothers/sisters. It is that serious.

 

[Jadin Xquire]

LightHorseMan: With the connection of Gen 19:1-5 and Jude 1:7, do you disagree with homosexuality being under Sexual Immorality?

 

[LightHorseman]

OK, to cover things one at a time.
You have said drugs are not bad, homosex is not bad, you have indicated you live with a woman without benifit of marriage; you have said outright that nothing is wrong unless it hurts another. Jesus has said to harm your own body is a sin, to think the wrong thing is a sin, to worship the wrong things is a sin. You condone things the bible doesn't, therefore, I am able to say, you live outside biblical teaching.

Well you certainly like to make assumptions, don't you.

I'm happily married, and I don't even drink alcohol. I DO use too much caffein, I admit. I never said "homosex isn't bad", I've said it isn't bad for the, ahem, "reasons" you say it is. I will however say that the Bible doesn't say anything about drugs being bad, and frequently refers to alcoholic drinks, and "every plant having a purpose". Where did Jesus say "to harm your own body is a sin or to think the wrong thing is a sin"? Don't you DARE misquote the "adultery in your heart" passage at me.

As far as the natural vs. unnatural thing, yes, that gets confusing, but we ARE talking about two definitions here. I quoted scripture that states homosex is an un-natural use of the body, you say homosex IS a natural use of the body. You then justify your claim by pointing to man made things and calling them un-natural.

Man made things are unnatural. What I SAID, if you actually care to read it again, is that nature is morally neutral. Whether something is natural or not is NOT indicative of whether it is moral or not. On the other hand, if you WANT to make such a claim, well, thats cool, I'm even happy to work with you. All I ask for is some consistency. If you want to claim unnatural stuff is bad well, thats fine. But I expect you to extend that to ALL unnatural stuff... including things like computers, internet and vascular surgery.

to clarify, mans nature may allow for homosex, because sin is natural to man. But, mans body was not intended to be used for homosex, any highschool anatomy studant could tell you that,

Maybe you should look beyond high school biology for indepoth understandings. Human bodies weren't DESIGNED for anything. They EVOLVED. And while I agree that same sex relationships won't naturally result in offspring, that doesn't mean they don't serve some other, perfectly natural purpose.

so that is an unnatural use of the body. You called things natural, so I pointed out that the natural man is sinful. The flesh should be used as intended, or natural. the nature of man is flesh and should be overcome with spirit.

And what makes you so sure that homosexual intimacy isn't a natural use of the body? Or, to help your very habitual thinking patterns look at it a different way... what makes you so sure that homosexual intimacy isn't ONE OF the natural uses of the body?

I think you know these things and just got flustered and challenged me but the Bible isn't THAT hard to read is it?

I think that might be part of the problem... you think the first read skimmed version, coupled with what you've been told by various authority figures all your life, is an accurate representation of "God's word". I don'[t think you consider for a moment the translation and interpretation difficulties inherent in meaningfully conveying a message across more than 2000 years, NOR do I think you take into account the context and societal norms of the authors. New American Bible says "homosexual" so you swallow it as meaning homosexual with narry a second thought. But is that what Paul REALLY meant? A great deal of academic though suggests not.

On the last thing, judgment, I grow weary of people calling it judgmental to say, "that is a sin, because the bible says so". You are every bit as "judgmental" when you say we are wrong to point out sin, you judge us for that. So what is the difference. If I WAS judging and doing my best to condemn you to hell, would that make your sin less? NO! So the whole arguement is a circular one. If I point at a convicted killer and call him a murderer, and he says I'm going to hell for my judgment, is he any more right with God? If I tell you to quit lusting, or to marry that woman you sleep with, are you less sinful if I don't say it, did I judge you by saying it?

So two wrongs make a right?

Where did I condemn anyone by the way? I merely point out that hudging is wrong. I don't think I said you were doing it did I. If when I mention it, you think it applies to you, I'd suggest your conscience is telling you a great deal more than I am.

If I've dealt with my sin, I am in a position to help my brother with his speck. If you are not a brother I am doing right to say "Repent! and be saved, be washed in the Blood".

Identifying sin is a responsibility, so long as your sight is good with the sin in your eye taken care of.

And so you've dealt with your sin have you? You're utterly without sin, and so perfectly entitled to sit in judgment over us wretched sinners are you?

Remind me... is pride a sin?

 

[LightHorseman]

I have taken that into consideration, but even when lustful thinking commences before physical homosexual acts start this is considered Adultery. Mental Adultery to be specific. Just thinking lustfully could send a person to hell.

Question LightHorseMan: Is Adultery within the boundaries of Sexual Immorality?

I don't think thats what that passage means. Christ is telling us to be mindful of our thoughts, lest they turn to acts. He didn't actually mean "just thinking about having sex with someone is as bad as doing it". Otherwise we'd ALL be damned, am I right?

adultery... would you want someone to commit adultery with your partner? No? Well, sounds like its a breach of the "love thy neighbour as yourself" standard, doesn't it?

 

[LightHorseman]

LightHorseMan: With the connection of Gen 19:1-5 and Jude 1:7, do you disagree with homosexuality being under Sexual Immorality?

Indeed.

There is absolutely nothing, in the Bible or otherwise to suggest that homosexuality was one of the reasons Sodom was destroyed. You only come to that through circular reasoning...

"Sodom was destroyed, Jude says because of sexual immorality, I think that was to do with homosexuality, therefore, homosexuality is sexual immorality".

Wrong. Sodom was destroyed because of haughtiness and failure to treat strangers with kindness. Read Ezekiel if you don't believe me. Sure, they MAY have committed sexual immorality there, but what the nature of that sexual immorality is never discussed.