Hey Who Believves In Homosexuality because i am christain post your beliefs!!!!!!!!!

[tcampen]

Btw...you might be right about Christians being the reason you don't equal rights as heterosexuals. From what I have read Bush is a Christian and he knows the bible, well if he does, he knows what happend to Sodom and Gomorah and would rather the U.S. not see that fate. If you don't agree with the facts presented in the bible about those two cities, maybe you can agree with the bible backed up by archeology?

Archeology prooves that cities consistent with the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah once existed around the Dean Sea, and appear to have met with catestrophic ends. A special kind of tar was harvested in this area, which was used to waterproof boats and other applications. People came from all around to get this tar because of its extremely useful properties. These cities, unfortunately, were located on a fault line, which made their demise essentially inevitiable. A decent earthquake along this fault line could have easily resulted in multiple factors contributing to the destruction of this cities, including liquifaction and ignition of all that tar.

The point is, just because someone wrote down a thousand years later that this natural disaster was attributable to a particular god for certain reasons doesn't make it so. It's like me today claiming Pompei was destroyed by the vocano due to the inhabitants evil ways. It was just avolcano doing what volcanos do. I'm not placing special emphasis on the Hebrew scriptures for doing this, however. There as never been a culture or religion that didn't attribute natural disasters to supernatural forces. Think about it.

 

[tigersnare]

Archeology prooves that cities consistent with the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah once existed around the Dean Sea, and appear to have met with catestrophic ends. A special kind of tar was harvested in this area, which was used to waterproof boats and other applications. People came from all around to get this tar because of its extremely useful properties. These cities, unfortunately, were located on a fault line, which made their demise essentially inevitiable. A decent earthquake along this fault line could have easily resulted in multiple factors contributing to the destruction of this cities, including liquifaction and ignition of all that tar.

The point is, just because someone wrote down a thousand years later that this natural disaster was attributable to a particular god for certain reasons doesn't make it so. It's like me today claiming Pompei was destroyed by the vocano due to the inhabitants evil ways. It was just avolcano doing what volcanos do. I'm not placing special emphasis on the Hebrew scriptures for doing this, however. There as never been a culture or religion that didn't attribute natural disasters to supernatural forces. Think about it.

So basically you're saying even with the evidence that completly lines up with the bible, you'd rather put your faith in man, or rather your or some other man's opinon.

You know alot of people once put their faith in the Archeologist who said there was no record found of a "David" in Egypt...a couple hundred years later they said, "Whoops, we made a mistake there most certainly was a David in Egypt and we now have the records". So think about all those people who died just knowing that the Word of God was wrong and put all their faith that there was no David in Egypt because of what Archeologist told them. Man that just sucks....I'd much rather put my faith in a higher being, man is so incredibly weak and fallible compared to the almighty God.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by tigersnare:
So basically you're saying even with the evidence that completly lines up with the bible, you'd rather put your faith in man, or rather your or some other man's opinon.

The evidence does not line up with biblical text at all. What archeologists have found is that there are the ruins of FIVE cities on the plains near the coast of the Dead Sea. There is NO evidence that any of these were named either Sodom or Gomorrah. According to the archeologists these cities were destroyed about 5000 years ago.

 

[tcampen]

So basically you're saying even with the evidence that completly lines up with the bible, you'd rather put your faith in man, or rather your or some other man's opinon.

You know alot of people once put their faith in the Archeologist who said there was no record found of a "David" in Egypt...a couple hundred years later they said, "Whoops, we made a mistake there most certainly was a David in Egypt and we now have the records". So think about all those people who died just knowing that the Word of God was wrong and put all their faith that there was no David in Egypt because of what Archeologist told them. Man that just sucks....I'd much rather put my faith in a higher being, man is so incredibly weak and fallible compared to the almighty God.

Volos, thank you.

And tigersnare, I think you may have overlooked my point. I don't disregard the bible has containing information about many real, historical facts. It has been proven time and time again that the bible does indeed have much that is supported by independent evidence. No problem there.

It is the injection of a very particular supernatural interpretation into those events that must be given scrutiny. Of everything confirmed independently in the bible, not one of them is of anything supernatural, but rather just the opposite. Simply because a Hebrew King named David once existed, and perhaps fought battles detailed in the Hebrew scripture and so, does lend any credibility to any supernatural forces that may also be detail therein.

If you were to accept such reasoning, then you would be forced to accept the supernatural occurances attributed to Mohammed, Joseph Smith, the appearances and miracles of the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje, or any other account where supernatural events are mixed in with real and verifiable people, places and things. But then again, maybe you do, who knows?

 

[Chakotay2]

Homosexuality is against God's Word. I don't believe in it. It is wrong no matter what anyone says. If you read your Bible carefully, you will see that homosexuality is one of the reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (sp.?) was destroyed.

 

[tcampen]

Homosexuality is against God's Word. I don't believe in it. It is wrong no matter what anyone says. If you read your Bible carefully, you will see that homosexuality is one of the reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (sp.?) was destroyed.

What? Not following that one - kind of a non sequitor. That god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is a story, which may or may not have actually occured. We really don't know. But even if there was independent evidence supporting the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even if those cities were destroyed, there is still a huge leap to establishing god did it and the reasons for doing so beyond the writings of some unknown author 1,000 years after the fact. That is the point I was trying to make.

We are all entitled to believe whatever we like. That's fine. Go with it. I absolutely support that right. I just happen to disagree with it.

 

[spinto]

Tcampen,

I agree. The Bible may indeed line up with actual world events… Even serve as a historical chronicle of sorts. But, that chronicle was created by a person or group of people that witnessed certain historical occurrences; understood them a certain way and then regurgitated the occurrence with their new added perspective of cause and effect. Often the sign of the time dictated that it was divine intervention that determined cause and effect (because it could not otherwise be explained). And this is a predictable theory for the time--after all, science was not then, what it is today. I indeed see the Bible as a look into human history. But more specifically, I see it as a record of a specific civilization(s) and culture(s)—an imprint of the way people thought when that particular work was written—and not necessarily a literal “mirror” of actual occurrences.

It is quite simple to come up with various explanations for natural occurrences…Take a simple storm for example… You can perceive it in the following ways:

A.) A combination of air pressures, temperatures, moistures and wind speeds cause a storm.
B.) God says the earth needs water and so it rains.
C.) A God is angry and thrashes around in the clouds.
D.) It is Mother Nature nourishing life.

And the list can go on and on…. It’s all about perspective.

Really, what I think is quite interesting about the Bible, is as a detailed and creative work, it has affected so many people for such a long period of time. The spirituality is in it’s creativity.

And so, again, it is only opinion and perception that deems homosexuality WRONG. Not a natural, factual law (as a matter of fact homosexuality is often observed in the animal kingdom as well. And indeed animals adhere to natural law even more willingly than we do). Otherwise, I don’t think homosexuality would even be possible. Like how it is not naturally possible for a naked man or woman to flap bare arms and take flight like a bird--it goes against a true law… the literal law nature.

 

[tigersnare]

The evidence does not line up with biblical text at all. What archeologists have found is that there are the ruins of FIVE cities on the plains near the coast of the Dead Sea. There is NO evidence that any of these were named either Sodom or Gomorrah. According to the archeologists these cities were destroyed about 5000 years ago.

No see you missed it here....he said two cities were found blah blah blah...and I basically said "what you described does in fact line up with the bible"....All I was doing was saying the facts he presented lined up with the bible....the facts HE presented.

 

[tcampen]

Spinto,

You're right on target. As for biblical interpretation, I really believe most people in the world use it as a source for doing the right thing, most of the time. Although history has clearly demonstrated the use of holy scriptures to commit atrocities as well.

In the narrow issue of homosexuality, I think those who use it the bible to condemn such individuals happen to be wrong. I'm not saying they're wrong on everything, just focusing in on this particular issue. I personally reject dogmatic responses to the events in our world, which includes this issue. I've seen people in destructive lifestyles that are both gay and strait, as well as healthy, loving relationships on both sides of sexual orientation. And when I refer to my gay and lesbian friends in these committed relationships and see the reality of the situation first hand, I cannot accept the dogmatic response of "it's just wrong." I have yet to hear from anyone who's witnessed what I have and still hold that view.

Perhaps we need to get down to reality a bit here.

 

[Rohatu Bhangaa]

OK. I see why a church would not condone homosexuality, and there is no reason a church should have to, or recognize homosexual marriage.
Let's all recognize that for the GOVERNMENT to REFRAIN FROM PUNISHING homosexuality does not mean that a church has to, and also that if a government chooses to recognize a homosexual marriage, a church will not have to.
Also, it's not really the word "marriage" that homosexuals are after, but the legal status of marriage - the benefits that come with it, such as community property, visitation rights at hospitals, and others. If marriage is sacred, then the term "marriage" can be reserved for man-woman legal unions. That isn't hard at all. Take Vermont.
Now, is there any reason two people shouldn't be able to agree to share property, or allow one another visitation rights at hospitals, or whatever else? Why shouldn't two brothers, or two friends, be able to agree to this? In a truly free society, they ought to be able to choose this for themselves. I'm not aware of how possible this is for just anyone, but why should anybody, even homosexuals, be denied this right?
If ANY laws are to be made against homosexuality, then they should ONLY restrain homosexuals from infringing on the rights of others. Say, prohibit unsolicited sexual passes. And we already have sexual harassment laws - not to mention that any unsolicited physical contact constitutes assault and battery in most states.
So, what harm does "being homosexual" do to anyone by nature? To quote Thomas Jefferson in the context of differing religious views, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." *
Whether God considers it an abomination is beside the point - God is adamantly against drunkenness, for example, but being alcoholic isn't illegal. Only drunk driving (as well as driving in an otherwise impaired state, drugged or sober), drunken (and sober) violence, etc.
SO, why is the government (NOT priovately instituted churches) responsible for its citizens' sexual orientation?


*One note: When we get into the realm of obligatory insurance coverage, a private sector issue, forcing something on a private institution for the sake of homosexuals and driving insurance rates up, the issue gets a little more hairy. In the public sector, discrimination has absolutely no place, and I would vouch for the homosexual in the private sector, but am not ENTIRELY sure. Ideally, it sounds like a job for a referendum every decade or so, but that's not part of our system.

 

[tigersnare]

Once again, like I said, you can say what you want about the bible, dismiss whatever scripture you like. But the bible does say one thing very very plainly, we will all be held accountable on judgement day, we will all have to answer to our sins. I'll will always pray for the souls of the lost, but it is up to you to soften your hearts and let God speak to you.

I'm not even going to bother discussing this anymore, it just isn't fruitful.

 

[tcampen]

Once again, like I said, you can say what you want about the bible, dismiss whatever scripture you like. But the bible does say one thing very very plainly, we will all be held accountable on judgement day, we will all have to answer to our sins. I'll will always pray for the souls of the lost, but it is up to you to soften your hearts and let God speak to you.

I'm not even going to bother discussing this anymore, it just isn't fruitful.

Perhaps you could clarify how the saved christian will have to personally answer for his sins on judgement day. I could never understand that one.

 

[revolutio]

Okay I am coming in late on this thread but I just wanted to put in my opinions on this.

I think much of the problems people have with homosexuality arises from their own discomfort when confronted with the issue. Many people have a knee-jerk reaction of "Ewww!" Though, granted, most people in a predominantly heterosexual society will have that reaction when encountering homosexuality for the first time, I don't think people should make decisions based on that.

Of the gay and bisexual people I have met I can say with certainty that none of them made the decision to be that way. Logically it can't happen, no one can control who they like. Feelings are entirely out of their control. Though I can't say for certain whether or not they were that way their entire lives since many of them are brainwashed so-to-speak to be straight and only came to the realization later that they weren't. Even if it were a decision I would see no problem in it. It is their choice to make. Besides if they are happy at no one elses expense no one is in any place to deny them that.

Some people say it isn't natural. Well if you use animals as a judge of what is natural (I don't but some do) it is a quite natural.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

I am not going to toss in my two cents on whether it is a sin or not since that is hardly my place to say what is a sin and what isn't.

 

[tcampen]

I suppose this gets us to the question of can a gay man or lesbian, an actively so, in a monogomous relationship, still be a saved christian. Considering all saved christians commit various intentional sins and acts of immorality, why all the hubbub about homosexuality.

(And please let's move beyond the "the saved have no intent to sin" since all sin is intentional and saved christians still commit sins.)

 

[Truncate]

There is no such thing as homosexuality, in homosapiens or other animals - it was made up in the 1980's by the Left-owned media!

</sarcasm>

 

[deleeuw]

"He was only a baby when it was obvious that he was different.He never played with boys toys and loved dolls. He grew up in a world that had no compassion as far as he was concerned."

This first part, where you suggest he wanted to play with girls toys? This can very well be an indication. I recently read a book on raising little girls (written by a female) which states these differences, partly of which you are speaking, ARE in fact noticeable from birth. So, it would make sense that you are correct in your observations. He was different in my opinion and many others'. It was not his fault as he was biologically, or rather genetically pre-disposed. I don't need a research study to clearly see that. It is common sense. This is why I try to have more compassion for these people - other than many Christians, unfortunately.

As I stated on my other thread, I think God's word rules of course. But I still wonder why God would allow such a conflict?? I just don't get it!? Again though if I am born with blue hair and God claims it is a sin? I'll cut it off or die it according to his word. I know the human brain does not have the capacity to understand God's thoughts as an ant cannot understand mine. I just simply believe and move on. Jesus did instruct us to accept everyone though, even the "hated" tax collector! I just wish in the name of Christ, I could give these people some comfort from God's word. I mean, because they are drawn to this, they must feel deep down like they are evil from the start.

Modern psychological evidence overwhelmingly shows that our psychological traits are a result of a mixture of heredity AND environment. Thus, there's no need to fret and think that God made someone gay. Environment is to blame in this specific situation, that's all.

As far as the statement about playing with toys normally used by the other gender, once again, modern psychology has an answer. I believe it is described in the "Initiative versus Guilt" stage of Erikson's stages of cognitive development that around ages 4 to 6 boys assume the "boy" role and want to play with boy toys, etc. It is during this stage that Erikson says a child develops his sexual identity, (an identity that lasts yet can be modified). The explanation is quite simple... certain environmental factors during that time frame caused the child to identify with the typical female role, rather than the male one, resulting in a boy who will later consider himself gay.

 

[deleeuw]

I suppose this gets us to the question of can a gay man or lesbian, an actively so, in a monogomous relationship, still be a saved christian. Considering all saved christians commit various intentional sins and acts of immorality, why all the hubbub about homosexuality.

(And please let's move beyond the "the saved have no intent to sin" since all sin is intentional and saved christians still commit sins.)

As Christians, we are supposed to live our lives for God and do whatever we can to stay away from sin. If a person chooses to actively participate in homosexuality, that is a choice to go against God's will in favor of worldy desires. And though we all do commit intentional sins, choosing to participate in a homosexual lifestlye is not a one-time deal, it is blatant, lifelong disregard for God's will. Are we not supposed to try to turn away from our sins and ask for forgiveness? Participating in a homosexual lifestyle is ignoring one major aspect of Christianity, the requirement that we do our best not to sin and to repent when we do. There is a big difference between someone who steals once and then repents and stops stealing, and someone who steals and keeps on doing it. That's why homosexuality gets more attention than other intentional sins - we shouldn't merely accept that we commit a certain sin and then keep commiting it. Accepting a life of homosexuality is basically choosing to keep commiting the same sin over and over, thus giving up on trying to live for God.

As far as salvation goes, the Bible doesn't just say homosexuality is wrong, it says that homosexuals will not go to heaven. (It refers to those who commit homosexual acts, not those who have homosexual thoughts or urges.. it's all in how one deals with the temptation) Early posts in this thread contain some specific passages.

 

[Philosoft]

Modern psychological evidence overwhelmingly shows that our psychological traits are a result of a mixture of heredity AND environment. Thus, there's no need to fret and think that God made someone gay. Environment is to blame in this specific situation, that's all.

Oh no you don't. Twin studies suggest homosexuality is somewhere between 40 and 50% heritable. That does not mean 40% of homosexuals are fully genotypically homosexual and 60% are fully environmentally homosexual. Your conclusion is entirely unjustified by the data.

As far as the statement about playing with toys normally used by the other gender, once again, modern psychology has an answer. I believe it is described in the "Initiative versus Guilt" stage of Erikson's stages of cognitive development that around ages 4 to 6 boys assume the "boy" role and want to play with boy toys, etc. It is during this stage that Erikson says a child develops his sexual identity, (an identity that lasts yet can be modified).

Blah. Erikson's Stage 3 implies no such thing. Erikson apparently believed confusion about sexual orientation is most likely to occur during Stage 5 adolescence, assuming the adolescent has unsuccessfully resolved earlier conflicts.

I can't find any remarks linking childhood gender roles and sexual orientation. Would you be so kind as to provide some?

The explanation is quite simple... certain environmental factors during that time frame caused the child to identify with the typical female role, rather than the male one, resulting in a boy who will later consider himself gay.

And the explanation has a hole big enough to drive a big gay truck through.

 

[GJG]

How does the Erikson studies fit in with the Sodom Gomorah problem?

The 40-50% hereditery scale seems to be non-existent.

 

[GJG]

What kind of a truck is a 'big gay truck'?