Homosexuality

[addo]

Perhaps you haven't read much of the OT, but women face much harsher realities than that. In fact, if you were a virgin and got raped, you would be sentenced to death.

You should study God's world more, because you are wrong on this one, if I am not mistaken. Here are some verses to consider:

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 KJV)
​

In the above case, both were stoned because the man committed adultery and the girl didn't scream, indicating acceptance. If she was truly forced then she didn't agree and naturally she should have screamed (or make loud noise to get attention) to get help. Since in the above case she didn't, it showed a case of acceptance, thus this means that she consents for the male to have sex with her, so they are both guilty: this is why both we killed in that case.

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 KJV)
​

In this case the promised girl is found in the field, and since even if she screamed, no one could help her, only the rapist is executed.

But this is only in the case the girl was promised to a man (they were going to get married; i.e.: she was engaged). If she was an unengaged virgin this is what was to do:

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV)
​

Now if a girl was not engaged and was raped (or just had sex, rape wasn't necessary for this to apply, I think) the man had to pay a price to the father and he was also to be his husband for life.

No it doesn't. Did you not read where I said in Hebrew, there are multiple words that when translated into English, mean the same thing, but have different meanings in Hebrew? This is why you cannot take an English translation at face value.

There weren't many words translated as "lie" in those passage, but all the words were the same: shâkab. Shâkab was used in all those instances and was translated as "lie", but obviously it had various meanings. Just like: "I slept with your sister" can have two meanings at least: I had sex with your sister or I literally slept with your sister, and nothing else. It's a phrase, just like "to lie with" is. And in that case it means to have sex, but not in a certain manner.

I hardly consider the first verse to be a noble example of sexual relations. Rachel told Leah to sleep with her husband, and Leah told Jacob he must sleep with her. Did he have any choice in the matter, considering God apparently approved of such twisted relationships? Who can say?

God didn't approve.

And Jacob had the ability to deny, he was not forced.

As for the second verse, I didn't say that word only exists for one meaning. Shakab means several things. I said in the usual context of direct sexual relations, it refers to some type of forced or deceitful actions.

Not really. It just means sex and by context we know whether it is forced or with consent.

Sorry, doesn't work. Look at the context of the passage. Why does it add "in the bed of a woman", if it was an outright condemnation on homosexuality? Why not just say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, it is abomination"?

Where do you read the phrase "in the bed of a woman"? This is what it says in my Bible in Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
​

The fact that in the Hebrew, it describes a specific location and instance, indicates it's referring to a cultural aspect. That to put a man in the position of a woman, i.e. in her bed, is the abomination. Not the fact that it's two men sleeping together.

Please quote the verse where it says "in the bed of a woman". I though we were speaking of the same verse (this one being Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13)

In my opinion, Lev 18:22 is stating that it is improper for a man - who was the head of society, to force another man into the position of a subservient woman, because it is demeaning in those days for a man to play the non-dominant role. This makes sense given patriarchal societies.

If this is so, why aren't there any verse where it forbids women to take the lead in sex? In other words, it were wrong for women to be on top, right? Why aren't there any verse forbidding it?

_______________

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
​

Since when is the Old Testament just by our standards?

Let's see...

1. What do you mean by "our"? The modern society? The Church? The world in general?
2. Why wouldn't it be just? Jesus inspired it. Jesus quoted it. It is declared as inspired by God. Paul quoted the Old Testament.

So why isn't the Old Testament just? Isn't it the word of God?

Children were executed for back talking to their parents back then.

And...? Why is it wrong? I bet the society was a lot better then since children obeyed their parents.

They didn't care who the guilty and innocent parties were.

How do you know? Were you there?

Only that both were engaged in the act, regardless if one person was forced.

Actually, it was important. As you read, if the engaged woman, for example was forced and she cried for help, she was not executed and if it as in the field and no one could hear she wasn't executed either since it is taken as a fact that she tried to call for help.

Welcome to Biblical morality.

It's wonderful, isn't it?

This is why so many people find the Bible, especially the OT, repugnant.

This is because they are from the world, and which is from the world does not understand God, who is not from the world.

It is not a moral code by which anyone should follow.

Why not? I find some very good moral percepts in it.

"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit. If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous. Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." (Exodus 23:1-9 NIV)
​

 

[onemorequestion]

You should study God's world more, because you are wrong on this one, if I am not mistaken. Here are some verses to consider:

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 KJV)
​

In the above case, both were stoned because the man committed adultery and the girl didn't scream, indicating acceptance. If she was truly forced then she didn't agree and naturally she should have screamed (or make loud noise to get attention) to get help. Since in the above case she didn't, it showed a case of acceptance, thus this means that she consents for the male to have sex with her, so they are both guilty: this is why both we killed in that case.

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 KJV)
​

In this case the promised girl is found in the field, and since even if she screamed, no one could help her, only the rapist is executed.

But this is only in the case the girl was promised to a man (they were going to get married; i.e.: she was engaged). If she was an unengaged virgin this is what was to do:

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV)
​

Now if a girl was not engaged and was raped (or just had sex, rape wasn't necessary for this to apply, I think) the man had to pay a price to the father and he was also to be his husband for life.
There weren't many words translated as "lie" in those passage, but all the words were the same: shâkab. Shâkab was used in all those instances and was translated as "lie", but obviously it had various meanings. Just like: "I slept with your sister" can have two meanings at least: I had sex with your sister or I literally slept with your sister, and nothing else. It's a phrase, just like "to lie with" is. And in that case it means to have sex, but not in a certain manner.
God didn't approve.

And Jacob had the ability to deny, he was not forced.
Not really. It just means sex and by context we know whether it is forced or with consent.
Where do you read the phrase "in the bed of a woman"? This is what it says in my Bible in Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
​

Please quote the verse where it says "in the bed of a woman". I though we were speaking of the same verse (this one being Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13)
If this is so, why aren't there any verse where it forbids women to take the lead in sex? In other words, it were wrong for women to be on top, right? Why aren't there any verse forbidding it?
Let's see...

1. What do you mean by "our"? The modern society? The Church? The world in general?
2. Why wouldn't it be just? Jesus inspired it. Jesus quoted it. It is declared as inspired by God. Paul quoted the Old Testament.

So why isn't the Old Testament just? Isn't it the word of God?
And...? Why is it wrong? I bet the society was a lot better then since children obeyed their parents.

How do you know? Were you there?

Actually, it was important. As you read, if the engaged woman, for example was forced and she cried for help, she was not executed and if it as in the field and no one could hear she wasn't executed either since it is taken as a fact that she tried to call for help.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
This is because they are from the world, and which is from the world does not understand God, who is not from the world.
Why not? I find some very good moral percepts in it.

"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit. If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous. Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." (Exodus 23:1-9 NIV)
​

Judah and Tamar anyone?

I guess Jesus IS the same yesterday, today and tmorrow.

 

[Lively Stone]

Yes, there's nothing quite like the exhilaration one gets from those bound together in homophobic unity. Relishing in the diminishing of another human being - a treasure of God, if you like - disgusts me. If this is Christianity then you can have it!

Brrrr . . .

Diminishing of an errant belief is more like it.

Whoohoooo! God is awesome! He is right and you are wrong. It's as simple as that.

 

[onemorequestion]

Sorry, doesn't work. Look at the context of the passage. Why does it add "in the bed of a woman", if it was an outright condemnation on homosexuality? Why not just say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, it is abomination"?

The fact that in the Hebrew, it describes a specific location and instance, indicates it's referring to a cultural aspect. That to put a man in the position of a woman, i.e. in her bed, is the abomination. Not the fact that it's two men sleeping together.

In my opinion, Lev 18:22 is stating that it is improper for a man - who was the head of society, to force another man into the position of a subservient woman, because it is demeaning in those days for a man to play the non-dominant role. This makes sense given patriarchal societies.

So let's see what the Jewish Publication Society thinks of your positions (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org): From The Tanakh Leviticus 18:

20 And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21 And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy G-d: I am HaShem.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled,

which I cast out from before you.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

​

When we go to Lev 20, we see that it is willing participants in the sex acts and not some sort of bizaare language or idiomatic or cultural expressions being displayed. It is choice behavior totally.

Leviticus 20:

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife--he hath uncovered his father's nakedness--both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.
13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness--he hath made naked her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood--both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister; for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.
20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife--he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness--they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
22 Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out.
23 And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

_____________________________________________________

Verse 23 is saying be in the world but not of it.

Since when is the Old Testament just by our standards? Children were executed for back talking to their parents back then. They didn't care who the guilty and innocent parties were. Only that both were engaged in the act, regardless if one person was forced.

That's reading into the scriptures YOUR perspective, or agenda or whatever.

Welcome to Biblical morality. This is why so many people find the Bible, especially the OT, repugnant. It is not a moral code by which anyone should follow.

That statement reinforces out and out atheism. Is that what you want?

That would be of the world with no doubt about it.

 

[KCKID]

Perhaps, but you say that to 'lie down' means to rape in that place. We women allowed by God to be raped?

Well, as obvious to we of today that rape is a no-no, it appears that rape was not not absolutely taboo as far as God was concerned. God was the epitome of patriarchy and it seems that a male could do just about anything with a female ...just as long as it did not offend another male. Have you read the areas of the Torah where God seems to be quite unconcerned (even commands!) that people - men, women, children, animals be killed - and females be raped? Does THIS sit right with you? It sure does not sit right with me. But, it appears that we HAVE to approve of everything that God did ...otherwise our Christianity is brought into question. Scary stuff when we HAVE to approve of things from a deity that would normally go against the grain of every decent moral person!

I personally don't know with certainty what the 'man lying' text in Leviticus means. But, nor do you. What I'm quite sure about, however, is that it is NOT aimed at those who are so sexually oriented toward others of the same gender. You, addo, appear to be very mature for a 15 year-old. Just thought I'd mention that. Perhaps you could take a shot at the question I asked previously with regard to WHY the 'man lying' text does not say anything about 'sexual relations' while all of the other texts, before and after the 'man lying' text, are quite clear in that they are referring to sexual relations.

By the way, since I've caught up with you again I'll answer a question that you've asked of me a couple of times. Planting different crops side by side appears NOT to be an abomination to God and it also appears that I was wrong to refer to this text as such. Not that it matters too much since many of the 'abominations' mentioned in the Bible are extremely trivial to we of today. Why do we take the 'man lying' abomination to be any more serious than 'haughty eyes' or the many other 'abominations' that are mentioned? The reason IS, of course, that Christians have highlighted the 'man lying' abomination strictly to support an agenda.

 

[KCKID]

So let's see what the Jewish Publication Society thinks of your positions (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org): From The Tanakh Leviticus 18:

20 And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21 And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy G-d: I am HaShem.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled,

which I cast out from before you.

When we go to Lev 20, we see that it is willing participants in the sex acts and not some sort of bizaare language or idiomatic or cultural expressions being displayed. It is choice behavior totally.
​

Leviticus 20:

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife--he hath uncovered his father's nakedness--both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.
13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness--he hath made naked her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood--both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister; for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.
20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife--he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness--they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
22 Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out.
23 And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
_____________________________________________________

Verse 23 is saying be in the world but not of it.

That's reading into the scriptures YOUR perspective, or agenda or whatever.

That statement reinforces out and out atheism. Is that what you want?

That would be of the world with no doubt about it.

In this day and age - SO far removed from the culture and the times of which you refer and rightly so - I have to shake my head in disbelief that you are presenting any of the above as if applicable to we of today. Today, onemorequestion, we use our God-given brains and reasoning abilities to determine what is right and what is wrong and what is logical. We have come a long way in regard to understanding so many things since those ancient times. We really don't require ancient Levite rules to dictate to us as to how we are to function in our everyday lives. If one does require such, then there is something radically wrong with that person.

I'm generally not too partial to the emoticons but I simply have to present this one since your post above makes me feel this way.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, it is. It's quite frightening. But I guess you mean 'frightening' as coming from me, a professed Christian, right ...? I tell it like I see it although it isn't always in my own best interests to do so.

I'm not sure who you're aiming that text at so I can't really comment. If it's meant as some pious criticism of me then so be it.

It only appears that way to you, this verse was intended to mediate the discrepancy where the "homophobic" Christians need to be less abrupt. The nature of the topic brings a lot of offence with it.

So when you became Christian you stopped being attracted to members of the opposite sex? Baloney. Orientation doesn't change just, because beliefs do. A homosexual person who becomes Christian will always be homosexual, barring an extremely rare miracle.

It does actually, if you accept what Jesus teaches you then you'll cross the bridge of homosexuality when you come to it. Sadly, many people stop there and can't bring themselves to cross the bridge, they are refusing to make that sacrifice. I think we all get stuck on sacrificing some form of sin from time to time.

Spiritual birth is nothing short of a miracle, and the curing of a homosexual to bi or even hetro is no feat too great for The Lord, the inhibitor is our human will when we value the ways of earth over the ways of heaven.

 

[Znex]

I think some people in this thread are viewing this debate as either Christian (anti-homosexuality: sinful) or non-Christian (pro-homosexuality: not sinful). What some of us are trying to say is that many Christians quickly slide form anti-act to anti-person. This is wrong, just as it would be wrong to show judgment and disdain for someone struggling with alcohol, anger issues, or any other sinful orientation. Consider these two scenarios:

You have a neighbor who is a good, kind person, but is an alcoholic. He is in denial that it is sinful. He says, "it's just a few drinks... I'm not hurting anyone!" In truth, he was right about not affecting others. Although he does get drunk fairly often, he always does it at home (never drives drunk). It never affected his job or his service in his church. He reads the Bible every day and considers his relationship with God to be fine. He is also a very good, thoughtful neighbor.

To Phineas, Znex, onemorequestion, Lively Stone, and others on the one side of the debate, I ask you this question: could you be friends with this person? Would you consider him a Christian? Answer honestly.

and this one:

You have a neighbor who is a good, kind person, but is a homosexual. He is in denial that it is sinful. He says, "it's just a committed relationship... I'm not hurting anyone!" In truth, he was right about not affecting others. Although he "lies with a man", he always does it in private. It never affected his job or his service in his church. He reads the Bible every day and considers his relationship with God to be fine. He is also a very good, thoughtful neighbor

Ok, now ask the same question: could you be friends with this person? Would you consider him a Christian? Answer honestly.

Both are living in sin, both are in denial, and neither one is negatively affecting you as a neighbor (or others, for that matter). But I have to wonder how many would show equal Christian love to both of them. I bet Jesus would!

I would, because God accepts all to be part of his kingdom. However, I would try to show both of them why what they're doing is wrong, because it is as my responsibility as their brother in Christ to do so. If they don't have any negative impacts, I'm not going to just ignore their deed; I'd be rather more concerned about what could happen in the future rather than satisfied by what's happening now.

It's like as if you're asking me about whether I had a kleptomaniac as a Christian neighbour who's good and kind. He's in denial that stealing is wrong. He says, "It's just a few trinkets every few days...I'm not hurting anyone!" In truth, he was right about not affecting anyone, because no one noticed that the things stolen were gone. Although he breaks into people's houses, he always does it when they're not at home. It never affected his job or his service in his church. He reads the Bible every day and considers his relationship with God to be fine. He is also a very good, thoughtful neighbor.

I'd be an idiot not to help, because one day he'll get caught and maybe even imprisoned because of some mistake he made. Won't the people that you were talking about get caught as well, not by men, but by God? I'd be a fool if I let people sin just because there was no earthly law against it. There's no earthly law against idolatry, but should I let people practice it? No!

Then consider the folly of your words!

 

[KCKID]

Spiritual birth is nothing short of a miracle, and the curing of a homosexual to bi or even hetro is no feat too great for The Lord, the inhibitor is our human will when we value the ways of earth over the ways of heaven.

Spriritual birth surely has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with 'the heart' of the individual. There is far too much emphasis on homosexuality (or one's sexual orientation in general) that actually has nothing to do with one's heart condition. That one is required to be heterosexual in order to receive spiritual birth is something that I simply cannot get my head around. This is not a teaching of Jesus.

 

[KCKID]

I would, because God accepts all to be part of his kingdom. However, I would try to show both of them why what they're doing is wrong, because it is as my responsibility as their brother in Christ to do so. If they don't have any negative impacts, I'm not going to just ignore their deed; I'd be rather more concerned about what could happen in the future rather than satisfied by what's happening now.

It's like as if you're asking me about whether I had a kleptomaniac as a Christian neighbour who's good and kind. He's in denial that stealing is wrong. He says, "It's just a few trinkets every few days...I'm not hurting anyone!" In truth, he was right about not affecting anyone, because no one noticed that the things stolen were gone. Although he breaks into people's houses, he always does it when they're not at home. It never affected his job or his service in his church. He reads the Bible every day and considers his relationship with God to be fine. He is also a very good, thoughtful neighbor.

I'd be an idiot not to help, because one day he'll get caught and maybe even imprisoned because of some mistake he made. Won't the people that you were talking about get caught as well, not by men, but by God? I'd be a fool if I let people sin just because there was no earthly law against it. There's no earthly law against idolatry, but should I let people practice it? No!

Then consider the folly of your words!

Heterosexuality is not a sin although heterosexuals DO sin. Homosexuality is not a sin although homosexuals DO sin. Those are my very simplified views on this issue. Is there any reason at all to make them any more complex?

 

[Znex]

Yes; because the Bible specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. If the Bible didn't say so, then what would be the point of arguing this at all?

Btw, I did already point out that homosexuals could become Christians, but they shouldn't stay homosexual.

 

[KCKID]

Yes; because the Bible specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. If the Bible didn't say so, then what would be the point of arguing this at all?

Btw, I did already point out that homosexuals could become Christians, but they shouldn't stay homosexual.

Oh-oh ...we're back to square one. Nowhere does the Bible state 'homosexuality is a sin', let alone specifically. Even in Hebrew, Greek, Latin ...

*sigh*

 

[Lively Stone]

So when you became Christian you stopped being attracted to members of the opposite sex? Baloney. Orientation doesn't change just, because beliefs do. A homosexual person who becomes Christian will always be homosexual, barring an extremely rare miracle.

That is false. A true believer will seek freedom in Christ, and will receive it.

"Orientation" is an argument coming from the homosexual agenda, which gives a person a reason for the hard root that is involved in this sin, and it is a form of rationalization and justification for the perversion.

A homosexual who comes to Christ for salvation will also desire to be free of that sin, just as anyone is remorseful of one's sin. If there is no remorse, then that is a sign of a satanic stronghold that needs deliverance.

 

[Jase]

Spiritual birth is nothing short of a miracle, and the curing of a homosexual to bi or even hetro is no feat too great for The Lord, the inhibitor is our human will when we value the ways of earth over the ways of heaven.

Except there is no documented, legitimate evidence in existence that shows 1) sexual orientation can be or needs to be cured - it isn't a disease and 2) that God would ever do such a thing. Based on the indication of countless people who have prayed to God for decades to have their orientation changed, it's quite obvious God has no intention of doing it for 99.999999% of said people.

 

[Jase]

Yes; because the Bible specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. If the Bible didn't say so, then what would be the point of arguing this at all?

Have you bothered to read any post in this thread showing why the Bible is not clear on this issue? Please show me this exact phrase in the original Hebrew or Greek - "Homosexuality is a sin".

Btw, I did already point out that homosexuals could become Christians, but they shouldn't stay homosexual.

Sexual orientation does not typically change, at least not in the way you are expecting it to.

 

[Jase]

That is false. A true believer will seek freedom in Christ, and will receive it.

"Orientation" is an argument coming from the homosexual agenda, which gives a person a reason for the hard root that is involved in this sin, and it is a form of rationalization and justification for the perversion.

A homosexual who comes to Christ for salvation will also desire to be free of that sin, just as anyone is remorseful of one's sin. If there is no remorse, then that is a sign of a satanic stronghold that needs deliverance.

Do you seriously believe this non-sense? Orientation is a biological reference.

As for coming to Christ - countless homosexuals have sought freedom from being "different" their entire lives, and God has done absolutely nothing about it for any of them. Please stop talking about things for which you are clueless, as I find it quite insulting that I haven't "prayed" hard enough according to you.

 

[Lively Stone]

Except there is no documented, legitimate evidence in existence that shows 1) sexual orientation can be or needs to be cured - it isn't a disease and 2) that God would ever do such a thing. Based on the indication of countless people who have prayed to God for decades to have their orientation changed, it's quite obvious God has no intention of doing it for 99.999999% of said people.

1) Yes, it is a disease or a stronghold of the mind.

2) God answers earnest prayer. The thing is, He wants us to repent, which means to turn our backs on the sin that holds us. I think many homosexuals don't want to turn away. Those who really do want to be free may have soul ties to the people they engaged in the behaviour with, and/or they may have a homosexual spirit that needs renouncing and casting out.

Good teaching and guidance from people in the know is important. new believers who are homosexual need to be prayed for to find a good church with leaders who are Spirit-filled and Spirit-led about this particularly thorny problem.

 

[Lively Stone]

Do you seriously believe this non-sense? Orientation is a biological reference.

I don't believe your nonsense. Every baby is born with the default: heterosexual.

As for coming to Christ - countless homosexuals have sought freedom from being "different" their entire lives, and God has done absolutely nothing about it for any of them. Please stop talking about things for which you are clueless, as I find it quite insulting that I haven't "prayed" hard enough according to you.

God is able to heal and deliver. Don't you believe that? Homosexuals are not hard cases for God. They are hard cases for themselves.

Praying hard isn't a prerequisite, and I never said it was. One needs not only salvation but he needs the Holy Spirit baptism for the power to live the way God wants.

 

[Jase]

1) Yes, it is a disease or a stronghold of the mind.

Actually, it is not a disease. It is a variant in human sexuality caused by hormonal changes in pre-natal development.

2) God answers earnest prayer. The thing is, He wants us to repent, which means to turn our backs on the sin that holds us. I think many homosexuals don't want to turn away. Those who really do want to be free may have soul ties to the people they engaged in the behaviour with, and/or they may have a homosexual spirit that needs renouncing and casting out.

None of this applies to me, but thanks for making faulty assumptions.

Good teaching and guidance from people in the know is important. new believers who are homosexual need to be prayed for to find a good church with leaders who are Spirit-filled and Spirit-led about this particularly thorny problem.

New believers need to stay away from conservatives who claim you can "pray the gay" away or repair it in other wise ineffective and dangerous methods. This ultimately leads to irreparable psychological damage.

 

[Jase]

I don't believe your nonsense. Every baby is born with the default: heterosexual.

Wrong. Most homosexuals and bisexuals knew at a young age that they felt different. I knew at age 3 or 4. The American Psychological Association supports this fact.

God is able to heal and deliver. Don't you believe that? Homosexuals are not hard cases for God. They are hard cases for themselves.

Tell that to every homosexual or bisexual who has prayed for many many years for God to change them, and he never does. Most of us have been through more torment and pain than you will ever comprehend, and God did nothing.