Australia to ban gay marriages

Status
Not open for further replies.

jameseb

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!
Mar 3, 2004
14,862
2,332
North Little Rock, AR
✟117,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
veggie said:
Are you saying it's OK to have slaves and be a Christian? How is degrading and denying another person's civil rights alright by God, but loving and caring for a person of your same gender is somehow evil? That doesn't make much sense... :scratch:


"Loving and caring" for someone of the same gender is not 'evil' nor a sin. Its an act of beauty and demonstrates the love of God in our hearts. Engaging in sexual acts with the same gender is considered a sin in Scripture. If you want to ask why that would be a sin, you'll have to ask God. ;)
 
Upvote 0

zoe_uu

Promoting Religious Tolerance
Apr 13, 2004
1,995
59
✟2,571.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Engaged
kdet said:
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that because a man owned slaves in a time when that was socially acceptable, it doesn't make him not a Christian.
But if it's not OK now in God's eyes, why was it OK to treat other human beings like dirt way back when, just because it was socially acceptable? Does God changes His mind on what is OK or not based on social perceptions?
 
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
veggie said:
But if it's not OK now in God's eyes, why was it OK to treat other human beings like dirt way back when, just because is was socially acceptable? Does God changes His mind on what is OK or not based on social perceptions?
God didn't say that it was ok to treat anyone like dirt. In fact God laid down specific laws in how a slave was to be treated. Slavery existed, it was a fact of life and the Bible deals with that fact.
 
Upvote 0

zoe_uu

Promoting Religious Tolerance
Apr 13, 2004
1,995
59
✟2,571.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Engaged
kdet said:
God didn't say that it was ok to treat anyone like dirt. In fact God laid down specific laws in how a slave was to be treated. Slavery existed, it was a fact of life and the Bible deals with that fact.
I find it hard to accept that my loving God would say it's OK "own" another person. Here's another reason why I don't read the Bible literally. :sigh:


*wonders if good Christian George W. Bush is going to take Iraqi slaves since the Bible says it's OK* :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rae
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
veggie said:
I find it hard to accept that my loving God would say it's OK "own" another person. Here's another reason why I don't read the Bible literally. :sigh:


*wonders if good Christian George W. Bush is going to take Iraqi slaves since the Bible says it's OK* :confused:
Your comments about my President is offensive to me, it really bothers me when people make silly unfounded statements like that about anyone.
Whether you read the Bible literally or not the fact is that slaves existed and my point was that owning a slave does not necessarily mean a person was not a man of God.

http://www.carm.org/questions/slavery.htm
 
Upvote 0

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
Bob Moore said:
Give me a break. I oppose homosexuality for more than reasons of faith. In your hedonistic, relativistic world everything depends on subjective notions and nothing is simply either 'right' or 'wrong'. Just because you want something does not mean that you have any kind of natural right to it.

And don't talk to me about tolerance. When something is inherently evil I will stand up an say so. The chips can fall where they may.

I don't mind what you say Bob, freedom of speech bears good fruit.

But, just to make the point: in another post you deny you are throwing any pejorative comments at any one else; just what do the last two sentences of your first paragraph amount to.
Not only do they not describe me (they are aspects of your own cast of straw men): but they would seem to wipe me of the map, fairly absolutely; and in my book of spades, that is reductive and pejorative.
Similarly with your reference to inherent evil. It's subjective and entirely on your part, its absolutely dismissive of the other: it carries no common ground or humanity; no prospect of redemption: simply outer darkness consigment stuff.

Again, I do not mind what you say: you do not offend or anger me; but, where we are calling spades spades, all you are doing is ending things, and on terms securing your own putative righteousness, and at the expense of others being anihilated, and denied inclusion.
Wielding an axe, in the close confines of Christian fellowship, may make you feel better; and you say let the chips fall as they will. I have to worry about the other human beings struck by your doctrinal axe.
 
Upvote 0

Bob Moore

Reformed Apologist
Dec 16, 2003
936
38
76
North Carolina
✟16,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
2001MustangGT said:
If 1 in 20,000 live births have Pseudohermaphriditism, and if XX male and XY female births occur at a 1 in 20,000 rate each, I am not quite sure that it is "drawing attention away from the central issue". I think, instead, that it is a "consequence of the central issue".

The unfortunates you mention are not in the same class we are discussing. They can't help it. And don't bother trotting out junk science backing for heriditary homosexuality.



And you didnt reply to my post where I put 14 quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, that supported my assertion that there is no developed country whose government and laws are founded upon the laws of the Bible.


You might want to have a look at all the documents pertaining to our founding. The Constitution is not fit to govern an ungodly people, which is one reason the Supreme Court has been largely ignoring it for the last fifty years.


Do you know how a person comes to believe that the USA is founded on Biblical law when the only time the Constitution mentions religion is when it calls for "freedom of religion", and the only time it mentions church is when it calls for "seperation of church and state" ?:confused:

You do well to use the "confused" smiley. The Constitution does not even suggest a separation of church and state, much less explicitly mention one.
 
Upvote 0

clayrichard

Acts 17:11
May 26, 2004
101
4
63
New Orleans Louisiana
✟15,246.00
Faith
Non-Denom
veggie said:
I wasn't referring to any Bible verse as hate language. But since you brought it up, I just answered the verse you quoted last night, allow me to copy my answer here:

First of all, the Holiness Code of Leviticus was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Galatians 3:22-25) If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.

What about Romans 1:27 ?
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


 
Upvote 0

Bob Moore

Reformed Apologist
Dec 16, 2003
936
38
76
North Carolina
✟16,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Existential1 said:
I don't mind what you say Bob, freedom of speech bears good fruit.

But, just to make the point: in another post you deny you are throwing any pejorative comments at any one else; just what do the last two sentences of your first paragraph amount to.

Now and then I get a little strong. My apologies.

Again, I do not mind what you say: you do not offend or anger me; but, where we are calling spades spades, all you are doing is ending things, and on terms securing your own putative righteousness,...

I don't have any righteousness of my own.

... and at the expense of others being anihilated, and denied inclusion.

They deny themselves inclusion by their actions.

Wielding an axe, in the close confines of Christian fellowship, may make you feel better; and you say let the chips fall as they will. I have to worry about the other human beings struck by your doctrinal axe.

The trouble is that too many churches are afraid to stand up for what they say they believe. "Christian fellowship" refers to the relationship between believers. It has nothing to do with accepting perverse behavior. "Believers" are those who believe God and live by what He has said, not those who appropriate the Name, but have none of the reality. Thus says the LORD, "I am the LORD, I do not change", and "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever". Those who want to follow their own ways will do so, but no amount of human reasoning can get around the fact that any lifestyle that revolves around wilfull sin will in fact end in destruction, It matters not at all that the subject does not think so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
Bob Moore said:
The yammering of one who has no cogent argument.


Nothing 'fast' about it. I've got you pegged.
My account?

You are quite free to ignore what the Bible plainly says if it suits you. But how about a little intellectual honesty in acknowledging that it says what it says?

Just so. You deny the content of scripture because it suits you to do so. That probably flies quite well in your social circle, but it doesn't get off the ground with me.

The yammering of one who has no cogent argument.

I have employed no perjoratives. But I have not, and will not, hesitate to call a spade a spade.

Copy that out of a freshman text, did you? You couldn't be more wrong.

There is no possible way to justify your position apart from the plaintive cry "I want to". You might as well claim that theft, murder, and deciet are also not condemned.

In this post Bob: what exactly do you do?

You quote from the Bible, and that is of interest. But the telling point is in Leviticus: and your scholarship being greater than mine; you know that this does not carry directly into New Covenant, in the opinion of many.

But the remainder Bob: what you say from out of yourself; what are its human qualities?

I bring one of you statements to the top, and bold it: then just list the others; are they not examples of just it.

Don't misuse the Bible: don't use it as shield and weapon, to serve personal prejudice; surely you risk devaluing it in that.

Your Biblical wisdom should be at the service of all: not in terms of your own agenda; but in terms of their approach to God.
My interest in this thread, is in what Christian fellowship we owe to veggie: and, in that I feel able to speak; not unduly hindered by your scholarship being so much greater than mine.

If you set out to doctrinally murder me or another, as you clearly do: then I will defend myself and that other; no matter how poor my instruments compared to yours.
OT and NT say that we shall not kill: under Jesus that extends to not killing the God that moves in another's witness; perhaps you are an adherent of the older covenant, and no shame in that, where you understand killing as ending another biologically.

I seek no argument with you: and would instead have your fellowship; and access to your gifts.
But, I must point out what you do, as I see that, and in manner allowing you prospect of adjusting your ways.

In this dispensation, this current global circumstance, where literalists and absolutists of all persuasions roam the earth, looking for sacrifices and victims and hegemony: more than ever we are required to love our neighbour; Jesus wants us, I would say, on the middle ground of tolerance.
The ground of crossfire and crucifixion, reviled by all the warriors of all absolutisms, all the purveyors of intolerance: where only God can provide redemptive resource; and only if we ask.
 
Upvote 0

zoe_uu

Promoting Religious Tolerance
Apr 13, 2004
1,995
59
✟2,571.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Engaged
clayrichard said:

What about Romans 1:27 ?
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


Let's read the KVJ, shall we?
Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses. Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.

Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.

Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.

In the NIV, as you quoted, we do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."

This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.
Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.
 
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Veggie, gay theology is not new to us.
All the rebuttals are here

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology
Joe Dallas
This article addresses pro-gay theology by dividing its tenets into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these positions is provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each.

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Theologian Robert Gagnon, in an interview, argues that both Testaments of the Bible are replete with explicit and implicit prohitibions of same-sex intercourse. He also responds to common claims regarding homosexuality and Scripture: Levitical laws don't apply, prohibitions (e.g. regarding Sodom)only pertain to rape, that Jesus was virtually silent on the issue, implying a lack of importance, that society's acceptance should be matched by the Church and that love and tolerance would demand acceptance of same-sex unions.

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Gagnon demonstrates explicit proscriptions against homosexual practice in Scripture, denies a theology of inclusion for homosexuals for inclusions' sake, analyzes analogies for disregarding Scripture's stance on homosexuality and takes issue with the Bible's alleged ignorance of innate and immutable homosexual desires (while he maintains for individual culpability). He also briefly critiques the claims of neurological and genetic primary causes for homosexual desires.

What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexual Issues?
Tony Marco
Marco thoroughly analyzes and contrasts biblical passages regarding homosexuality and queer theology.

Homosexual Theology
Kerby Anderson
A response to several arguments offered by pro-gay theologians: the sin of Sodom, Mosaic law, New Testament passages, and "God made me gay."

The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Gagnon dismantles the arguments he considers concocted by Neil Elliott to argue that the Apostle Paul in Rom 1:18-32 was thinking only of the emperor Nero and a predecessor, Gaius “Caligula,” both of whom were connected with emperor worship and sexual excesses. Paul allegedly did not have in view “faithful and loving” homosexual unions. A good example of a specific application of gay theology critiqued.

Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History
 
Upvote 0

zoe_uu

Promoting Religious Tolerance
Apr 13, 2004
1,995
59
✟2,571.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Engaged
kdet said:
Veggie, gay theology is not new to us.
All the rebuttals are here
:) That's nice, a bunch of websites that would rather condemn me, than love me as Jesus commanded.

All the rebuttals of why I say I should be treated equally and fairly are not new to me either.
 
Upvote 0

clayrichard

Acts 17:11
May 26, 2004
101
4
63
New Orleans Louisiana
✟15,246.00
Faith
Non-Denom
veggie said:
Here's another reason why I don't read the Bible literally. :sigh:

The problem with that view is now the only moral standard is the one interpriting the text. I read a passage, then based on my opinion, decide it agrees with me.

If God truely loves us He isn't going to leave us on our own to figure out right and wrong, how to have eternal life ect. If a pasage seems to contradict the loving caractor of God the fault is either with our understanding of the text or failing to see the big picture.

God loves us
Sin destroys us
So God hates sin and MUST judge it.
If God hates homosaxuality (not the homosexual)as revealed in both testaments, homosaxuality must be distructive to those He loves.

[size=+1]Consider[/size][size=+1]:
[/size]
From the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada:

"CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. (emphasis added)" [International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661}



Consider:
Excerpts from a report by the D.C. Family Research Council, citing dozens of experts and studies, including a study of some 5,200 obituaries, over five years, in 16 homosexual newspapers:



• Average age of men dying w/ AIDS is 39.

• The average age of homosexuals dying of all other causes, 41 (Average mafioso dies at 44).

• Only 1% lived to be 65 or older, as opposed to 80% for heterosexual men.

• Other studies have found only 3% of all homosexuals are over the age of 55.

source http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/ShortLife.html

Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?

Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:

· Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and

· Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet

· Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.

These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).

This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.

Source: http://www.history.pomona.edu/vis/04h21/readings/frc_Q&A.html

John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly.





 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Existential1

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2004
1,591
74
Caputh, Perthshire
✟2,128.00
Faith
The trouble is that too many churches are afraid to stand up for what they say they believe. "Christian fellowship" refers to the relationship between believers. It has nothing to do with accepting perverse behavior.

What you say, and I bold, we can agree; can thereby proceed in some work of fellowship on.
But, minor to the God truth that we thereby deal with, but big to any working relationship of fellowship: we immediately encounter our differences as to exactly what this failure of standing consists in; and our differences as to how might proceed to some correction.
If we see surrender to God truth as our proper basis for proceeding: we are immediately as virgins or little children; before this task we have nothing, we go on providentially, only in faith in God.
We leave, we must leave, all our doctrinal baggage on the earthside of this needle's eye, if we would enter the God space of this work.
If it defeated the congregations and communions of these churches: then what do you or I begin with, that is any better; we begin with nothing, and that becomes strength.

I need not take issue (though I might be edified) with what anyone else draws as understanding from the Bible: I do not gainsay or reductively interpret the Bible; I merely have as an absolute article of faith, independent of all else, the knowledge that homosexuality is neither here nor there, on the scale of things, and in comparison with the challenges facing Christianity.
Even the matter and question of active homosexuality, falls together with heterosexuality, and all other human sexuality. The issue of sexuality is merely one of how human sexuality as such, stands with God cleaving.

So, as regards you and I: what is the Bible in all this; and beginning from some recognition that we make different recourse to it.
I say that you have a literalist relation to the Bible: and that is somewhat self explanatory.
My relation to the Bible is as living word, and not doctrinally. I read the Bible, and in faith as to its truth, I find myself made. It's as simple as that. The truth of the movements in this are of God: I can seek to witness them; but, if I seek to give them doctrinal form, then I kill the truth that moved me.
I can cope with others coming at me, and be buffeted about by assertion as to this and that, and proper method of proceeding, and everyhting under the sun and the son: but, in my ferality, I remain with my own experience; that I read living word, and am reborn.
 
Upvote 0

zoe_uu

Promoting Religious Tolerance
Apr 13, 2004
1,995
59
✟2,571.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Engaged
clayrichard: AIDS started in monkeys and was first brought to the US by a heterosexual man. So using AIDS to convince someone that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, is false. Straights spread syphilis. Heterosexuals also spread AIDS. AIDS is caused by a virus, and the virus does not discriminate. Unsafe sex by anyone will spread the disease.


If God hates homosaxuality (not the homosexual)as revealed in both testaments, homosaxuality must be distructive to those He loves.
But pretending to be someone you're not just because some people believe God doesn't like the person She made you to be, is not destructive? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Rae

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.
Aug 31, 2002
7,793
408
51
Somewhere out there...
Visit site
✟25,746.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Erm...has anyone else noted yet that if you take the language in Romans 1:27 literally, it's only talking about men who once were heterosexual and now are homosexual? Since homosexual men were never heterosexual, this verse can only, at its literal best, be speaking of bisexual men who deny themselves heterosexual outlets. :)
 
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
veggie said:
clayrichard: AIDS started in monkeys and was first brought to the US by a heterosexual man. So using AIDS to convince someone that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, is false. Straights spread syphilis. Heterosexuals also spread AIDS. AIDS is caused by a virus, and the virus does not discriminate. Unsafe sex by anyone will spread the disease.


But pretending to be someone you're not just because some people believe God doesn't like the person She made you to be, is not destructive? :scratch:
The man was NOT heterosexual..he was homosexual and a flight attendant. This type of dishonesty is really not necessary.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]International Travel[/font]

The role of international travel in the spread of HIV was highlighted by the case of 'Patient Zero'. Patient Zero was a Canadian flight attendant called Gaetan Dugas who travelled extensively worldwide. Analysis of several of the early cases of AIDS showed that the infected individuals were either direct or indirect sexual contacts of the flight attendant.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Rae said:
Erm...has anyone else noted yet that if you take the language in Romans 1:27 literally, it's only talking about men who once were heterosexual and now are homosexual? Since homosexual men were never heterosexual, this verse can only, at its literal best, be speaking of bisexual men who deny themselves heterosexual outlets. :)
An answer to this portion of pro-gay theology

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Paul is not describing true homosexuals; rather, he is referring to heterosexuals who, as he says "exchanged natural relations." The real sin here is in changing what is natural to the individual. Boswell takes this argument up when he states:

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on.[82]

Mollenkott agrees, saying, "What Paul seems to be emphasizing here is that persons who are heterosexual by nature have not only exchanged the true God for a false one but have also exchanged their ability to relate to the opposite sex by indulging in homosexual behavior that is not natural to them."[83]

In short, Paul in Romans 1 describes heterosexuals who have deliberately committed homosexual acts, thus violating their true nature. Homosexuality, if committed by true homosexuals, is not a sin.

Response:

Paul is not speaking nearly so subjectively in this passage. There is nothing in his wording to suggest he even recognized such a thing as a "true" homosexual versus a "false" one. He simply describes homosexual behavior as unnatural, no matter who it is committed by.

His wording, in fact, is unusually specific. When he refers to "men" and "women" in these verses, he chooses the Greek words that most emphasize biology: arsenes and theleias. Both words are rarely used in the New Testament. When they do appear, they appear in verses meant to emphasize the gender of the subject, as in a male child (arsenes). In this context, Paul is very pointedly saying the homosexual behavior committed by these people was unnatural to them as males and females (arsenes and theleias ). He is not considering any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying, in other words, that homosexuality is biologically unnatural-not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Additionally, the fact these men were "burning in lust" for each other makes it highly unlikely they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. Their behavior was born of an intense inner desire. Suggesting, as Boswell and Mollenkott do, that they were heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires unreasonable mental gymnastics.

Besides which, if verses 26-27 condemn homosexual actions committed by people to whom they did not come naturally, but do not apply to people to whom those actions do come naturally, then does not consistency compel us to also allow the practices mentioned in verses 29-30-fornication, backbiting, deceit, etc.-so long as the people who commit them are people to whom they do come naturally?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.