Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

what i meant by the mouth analogy is that it can spew both love and hate, yet God's intended function is love is it not?

And the point of that is the body part in itself is not sin, but can be used in sinful ways.

Which begs the question: which functions are sinful?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Which begs the question: which functions are sinful?

depends on your view, some believe that anything that is done without the intention of glorifying God is a sin. As far as biblically, i'd say off the top of my head that any of the basic commandments that involve the mouth, lying, blasphemy etc would all be considered sinful. As well as any sexual acts outside of marriage. I haven't really researched the sins of the mouth in particular so I can't really say any more on the subject.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

just noticed I am speaking of actions, not really the functions. Basically along the premise that a part of the body in itself is not sinful but how it is used can be.

 

[dayhiker]

So if the sex organs are used to express love and not harm someone then its OK, but if they are used to harm someone then its sinful ... makes sense to me.

dayhiker

 

[Wiccan_Child]

depends on your view, some believe that anything that is done without the intention of glorifying God is a sin. As far as biblically, i'd say off the top of my head that any of the basic commandments that involve the mouth, lying, blasphemy etc would all be considered sinful. As well as any sexual acts outside of marriage. I haven't really researched the sins of the mouth in particular so I can't really say any more on the subject.

So sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. What of sexual acts in marriage?

 

[djbcrawford]

Quote:
Why is sexual activity soley about procreation? Why do we abhor rape, if it is only in the name of procreation?
excelent question

excelent question

Because prior to sexual procreation there is meant to be a loving commitment (i.e. marriage) to create a stable family bond for said product of this procreation (i.e. child) to be born into.

Rape obviously forces the sexual activity with no regard for a stable commitment, family bond or a desire to raise a child.

Is there a difference between someone using their superior strength/size/agression to force a woman to have sex and someone using their superior charm/intelligence/cunning to fool a woman into the same thing?

 

[Jerrell]

It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable. Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.

 

[Aquamarine81]

It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable. Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.

That is your interpretation of what the Bible says -- doesn't mean it's right. God would not want us to change the way we are, and the way we feel.

 

[Ohioprof]

It's pitiful that so many are confused of the basic fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that is not debatable or deniable. Whether or not you care it is a sin and abomination is up to you, but trying to use the tatics of the devil to justify it does not make it any less than what it is, God still requires change.

Of course it is debatable. That's why we have been debating it.

 

[ReformedChapin]

That is your interpretation of what the Bible says -- doesn't mean it's right. God would not want us to change the way we are, and the way we feel.

That could easily be said about your interpretation too. What's your point?

 

[Ohioprof]

That could easily be said about your interpretation too. What's your point?

I think the point is that human understandings of the Bible are ALL interpretation. No one can credibly claim that his or her particular interpretation of the Bible is God's word. It's just his or her belief about God's word. You believe that God condemns homosexuality based on your reading of the Bible. Other people believe that God does not condemn homosexuality based on their reading of the Bible. I believe God does not condemn homosexuality, and I don't base my belief on the Bible at all. What you see as God's word is just your beliefs.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I think the point is that human understandings of the Bible are ALL interpretation. No one can credibly claim that his or her particular interpretation of the Bible is God's word. It's just his or her belief about God's word. You believe that God condemns homosexuality based on your reading of the Bible. Other people believe that God does not condemn homosexuality based on their reading of the Bible. I believe God does not condemn homosexuality, and I don't base my belief on the Bible at all. What you see as God's word is just your beliefs.

We all know that, what's your point?

 

[Ohioprof]

We all know that, what's your point?

Why, after people have made their point, do you repeatedly ask people, "What's your point?" I have made my point. It's in my post. If you want to dismiss my point, that's up to you. But my point is clear in my post. And I think the previous poster's point was clear in her post.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Why, after people have made their point, do you repeatedly ask people, "What's your point?" I have made my point. It's in my post. If you want to dismiss my point, that's up to you. But my point is clear in my post. And I think the previous poster's point was clear in her post.

You have no point, all you are trying to do is make adhomenin attacks and reducing debates to rhetoric. The only reason why you dismiss other peoples peoples arguments is basically " it's your interpretation." That means nothing.

 

[Ohioprof]

You have no point, all you are trying to do is make adhomenin attacks and reducing debates to rhetoric. The only reason why you dismiss other peoples peoples arguments is basically " it's your interpretation." That means nothing.

First of all, saying that people's understanding of the Bible is their interpretation is NOT an adhominem attack. It's a point about Bible interpretation.Second, my point DOES mean something. We have seen some Christians here claim that they speak for God when they cite the Bible. They do not. They speak their interpretation. We have seen some Christians here claim that they speak the truth, the absolute truth, when they cite the Bible. They do not. They speak their interpretation. It's important for all of us to recognize that our interpretations are not "truth." They are merely our interpretations. Our beliefs are not "truth." They are merely our beliefs. There are many paths to God. There are many ways of seeing God and trying to know God. Christianity is not "truth." It is an approach to truth, or more accurately, a variety of approaches to truth. Christianity is no better and no worse than the other world religions, than other approaches to truth.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

How could it last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text?

 

[Ohioprof]

How could it last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text?

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. How could homosexuality last this long? How could opposition to homosexuality last this long? Can you clarify?

 

[Ohioprof]

How could it last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text?

Oh, perhaps you mean how could the Bible last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text. Is that your question?If so, I would point out that other faiths have ancient scriptures that have been around a very long time also. The Vedic scriptures from India are an example. They are the foundation of Hinduism. The Koran is not as old as the Bible, dating to sometime in the 8th century, but that's still pretty old.I would also note that I think the Bible does contain truths in the sense of collective wisdom (human wisdom) and some historical truths. It is thus a valuable historical source. And the Bible has been of enormous significance in shaping the development of the religion with the biggest following in the world: Christianity. So I acknowledge the significance of the Bible and its value as a source of information, though it is a source we need to use carefully. My personal belief is that the Bible is not the word of God, and it is therefore not an authority for me. But that does not mean the Bible is entirely untrue or that it has no value.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Oh, perhaps you mean how could the Bible last this long if there wasn't a clear cut truth in the text. Is that your question?If so, I would point out that other faiths have ancient scriptures that have been around a very long time also. The Vedic scriptures from India are an example. They are the foundation of Hinduism. The Koran is not as old as the Bible, dating to sometime in the 8th century, but that's still pretty old.I would also note that I think the Bible does contain truths in the sense of collective wisdom (human wisdom) and some historical truths. It is thus a valuable historical source. And the Bible has been of enormous significance in shaping the development of the religion with the biggest following in the world: Christianity. So I acknowledge the significance of the Bible and its value as a source of information, though it is a source we need to use carefully. My personal belief is that the Bible is not the word of God, and it is therefore not an authority for me. But that does not mean the Bible is entirely untrue or that it has no value.

Could we get back to the topic, please. This is not a thread to discuss opinions on the validity of the Bible, as the thread title says "evidence that homosexuality is wrong", and since its in the Christian philosophy and ethics subforum, its implied that the question is directed towards christians. Unless you have some other method for christians to provide evidence besides using the bible, I don't see the relevance of your statements about its validity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because prior to sexual procreation there is meant to be a loving commitment (i.e. marriage) to create a stable family bond for said product of this procreation (i.e. child) to be born into.

Rape obviously forces the sexual activity with no regard for a stable commitment, family bond or a desire to raise a child.

So sex does have functions beyond mere procreation: it is used to bond the parents.

Is there a difference between someone using their superior strength/size/agression to force a woman to have sex and someone using their superior charm/intelligence/cunning to fool a woman into the same thing?

Yes: the latter does not force the woman.