Homosexuality from a christian point of veiw.

outlaw · Dec 4, 2005

Montalban said:
Yes, Christians have an 'agenda' that even when they were a minority group they held fast to ideals of moral behaviour. And we still do it!

Baring false witness by comparing homoseuxlas to pedophiles is moral behavior???

wblastyn · Dec 4, 2005

outlaw said:
I see that you agree that the bible has been used to justify racism just as it is used to justify anti-homosexual prejudice.

The bible has also been used by people to justify killing someone who they don't like (ie burning "witches" and "devil worshippers" at the stake).

Montalban · Dec 4, 2005

outlaw said:
Baring false witness by comparing homoseuxlas to pedophiles is “moral behavior”???

Given that I'm continually here comapring it to bestiality, then you're bearing false witness.

But if you want to argue over the various plusses and minusses of different analogies, you're more than welcome to!

Montalban · Dec 4, 2005

Tangnefedd said:
Yes, Christians have an 'agenda' that even when they were a minority group they held fast to ideals of moral behaviour. And we still do it!

You reckon? Some of the most immoral people I know call themselves born agains!

Well thanks for that! Proof positive, hey?

Tangnefedd said:
It all depends what you mean by morals of course. Some fundies only seem to be interested in the prurient details of what folk get up to in bed. Who gives a damn as long as it is consensual, and not with animals or minors? Yet many American fundies seem to be quite happy with what is going on in their name and perpetrated by their Government in Cuba and in Iraq. If the latest news reports are true it is claimed that the CIA has exported terrorist suspects so they can be interrogated in countries that are quite happy to use torture as a means to an end. Now that is immoral!

Indeed we can compare what they say, to what they should preach, so we know that there's a core of Christian morals here at play; you even recognise this too, comparing them against this code, and you're able to contrast them against this code.

But then you'd want them to break that code in regards homosexuality

Montalban · Dec 4, 2005

outlaw said:
I see that you agree that the bible has been used to justify racism just as it is used to justify anti-homosexual prejudice.

As for anti-semeticism please don’t insult people by suggesting that just like those who choose to hate based on skin color and those who choose to hate based on sexual orientation those who hate Jews cannot and do not use the bible to their own ends.

1 Thessalonians 2:15

Revelations 3:9

Isaiah 1:4

See also:

Why the Jews?: The Reasosn for Antisemtism – Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin

So you don't have any evidence!

Montalban · Dec 4, 2005

wblastyn said:
The bible has also been used by people to justify killing someone who they don't like (ie burning "witches" and "devil worshippers" at the stake).

But at the same time we all recognise that this is not what it's purpose is.

outlaw · Dec 4, 2005

Montalban said:
Given that I'm continually here comapring it to bestiality, then you're bearing false witness.

But if you want to argue over the various plusses and minusses of different analogies, you're more than welcome to!

i guess this means that is exactly what you think.

Montalban · Dec 4, 2005

outlaw said:
i guess this means that is exactly what you think.

Considering I've daily been using one analogy and people keep attacking it by saying if I want to use (another) analogy it shows most people here have simple knee-jerk reactions to what is written.

Consider what is said, not what you wish to have been said.

However, should you wish to make argument on this other comparison, I will not shy away from it either, as I'm quite happy to engage on debate... just pointing out that when I am engaging on debate, I think it's helpful if people address what is said.

The balls in your court.

Montalban · Dec 5, 2005

The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is A Linguistic As Well As A Moral Error
R.V. Young
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/YoungHomosexuality.php

SimplyMe · Dec 6, 2005

Montalban said:
The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is A Linguistic As Well As A Moral Error
R.V. Young
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/YoungHomosexuality.php

Quite obviously written with an agenda, as is plain to see. We know of lots of homosexual sex in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, so the fact that there is no corresponding word would seem to indicate that it was just sex and was not a unique kind of sex that required a different name.

Instead of this being a case of people making a new name to "normalize" a behavior, I would submit this appears to be a case where some Christians wanted a new sin that they could claim to be worse than fornication or adultery.

brightmorningstar · Dec 6, 2005

To SimplyMe,

Quite obviously written with an agenda, as is plain to see. We know of lots of homosexual sex in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, so the fact that there is no corresponding word would seem to indicate that it was just sex and was not a unique kind of sex that required a different name.

What do you mean..if there is no corresponding word, how do we know there was lots of homosexual sex? The answer I would suggest is that the act was described without using a modern word. You have already used a modern words concept and looked for it in ancient times. Gay a few decades ago was unheard of for a sexual meaning, Sex between two men occurred in ancient times and goes on today, the nature of the act hasn't changed. It doesnt matter who does the homosexual or same sex act whether they are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual the act is the same and condemned in scripture as in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1. We dont even need a specific condemnation of the homosexual act as we see sex is to be within a faithful man/woman marriage as in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, 1 corinthians 7, Ephesians and many other instances in the NT. There is no agenda, that is the only possible conclusion.

Instead of this being a case of people making a new name to "normalize" a behavior, I would submit this appears to be a case where some Christians wanted a new sin that they could claim to be worse than fornication or adultery.

But thats exactly what most Christians do not propose. Its a baseless argument. If marriage is broken by divorce and if one should not divorce because of fornication (Matthew 19) and Jesus teaches adultery and sexual immorality (pornos/fornication) are wrong (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21) where does any other sex get countenanced?

Followers4christ · Dec 6, 2005

outlaw said:
[/font][/size][/font]
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.

Romans 1:26

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.

I have yet to see anyone trying to use this verse to justify personal prejudice take verse 26 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:18

Againpicking and choosing based on personal whim what laws of the bible to follow and what laws to ignore.

What were they?

What happened to them?

Why do we not have 4 legged insects today?

Why dont we have any descriptions of these amazing 4 legged insects?

Why dont we have any samples of these 4 legged insects?

So why did they stop?

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

Proverbs 8:26-27

He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Job 26:10

flat

Well the bible does say how old Jehoram was when he died

Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

2 Chr 21:20,

for anyone not paying attention this means he was 32 when he took the throne and he reigned for 8 years making him 40 when he died.

Ahaziah

And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

2 Chr 22:1-2

Again for anyone not paying attention Ahaziah was 42 when his father died and he took the throne making him two years older than his father.

It seems once again I am longing for an eye rolling smiley.nothing else here would suffice.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:18

Yes we were bound by the law when Jesus was alive but when Jesus died on the cross then we were not bound by the law.Matt 5:18 Jesus was still alive wasn't he?.Also notice at the end of matt 5:18 "until everything is accomplished" and Jesus accomplished everything when Jesus died on the cross for us.

Romans 7:4"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

You might ask but are the jews still bound by the law?No

Hebrew 8:6-8"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.But God found fault with the people and said :
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

In your quote you said that Ahaziah the son of Jehoram was 42 years old when he started his reign making him older than his father which in fact he was only 22 years old according to (NIV)2 Chronicles 22:1 "The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah Jehoram's youngest son king in his place,since the raiders,who came with the Arabs into the camp,had killed all the older sons.So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king and he reigned in Jerusalem one year."KJV says Ahaziah was 42 The NIV says he was 22 years old when he reigned.But in both versons in 2 Kings 8:26 says that he was 22 years old when he reigned.

Now about the 4 legged insects.I dont know what they were called because the bible does not name them.They probably died off like some of the species are dying off today.The only difference is that today we have carmas to take pictures but in the time of the bible there were no cameras.3-Its been thousands of years since then so finding some insect remains are pretty slim.

So why did they stop? Only God can anwser that for you.

Now about what you said about Romans 1:26.Its amazing how you can twist words arround,but the fact is the bible makes it clear that Homosexuality is a sinful nature.Now if your purpose is to find a contradiction in the bible you have you work cut out for you,because there is no contradiction.God Bless

Followers4christ · Dec 6, 2005

Tangnefedd said:
If people use the Bible to support all sorts of evil, like racsim and the repression of women and homosexuals etc, then parts of the Bbile are evil!

Your saying the word of God is evil,Your basically calling God evil.If you can't accept part of Gods word you can't accept any of Gods Word.Your going by the World's teaching not Gods and the worlds teaching does not lead to God but to satan.The world's teaching such as Homosexuality is ok which it isnt as stated in the bible.You have to ask yourself what is more important personal pleasures or God?What is more important Gods teaching or the worlds which leads to destruction?What is more important God or Homosexuality?God Bless

1 John 2:15-17 "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.For everything in the worldthe cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and doescomes not from the Father but from the world.The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."

James 4:4 "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

2 Timothy 3:2-5 "People will be Lovers of themselves,Lovers of money,boastful,proud,abusive,disobedient to their parents,ungrateful,unholy,without Love,unforgiving,slanderous,without self control,brutal,not lovers of the good,treacherous,rash,conceited,Lovers of pleasure rather than Lovers of god."

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 "All Scriptures is God Breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,correcting and training the righteousness."

2 PETER 1:20 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.".

ChristianCenturion · Dec 6, 2005

SimplyMe said:
Quite obviously written with an agenda, as is plain to see.
We know of lots of homosexual sex in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, so the fact that there is no corresponding word would seem to indicate that it was just sex and was not a unique kind of sex that required a different name.

Oh, this is a diliciously ironic declaration. ESPECIALLY since it is the gay advocates that are attempting to control via condemnation and hypersensitivity what language is used during generalized use.
Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language
or example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149572,00.html
http://washingtontimes.com/culture/20050314-102926-1147r.htm

Instead of this being a case of people making a new name to "normalize" a behavior, I would submit this appears to be a case where some Christians wanted a new sin that they could claim to be worse than fornication or adultery.

Fornication and adultery are surely serious sins and in need of repentance; however, homosexuality is right there with them in offense and need of repentance. I would however caution about haphazardly making over-generalized statements against what is allegedly brothers and sisters in Christ. That too may qualify as an offense under slander if not considered carelessly bringing shame to the name of Christ.

Matthew 15:19
" For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

SimplyMe · Dec 7, 2005

brightmorningstar said:
To SimplyMe,

What do you mean..if there is no corresponding word, how do we know there was lots of homosexual sex? The answer I would suggest is that the act was described without using a modern word. You have already used a modern words concept and looked for it in ancient times. Gay a few decades ago was unheard of for a sexual meaning, Sex between two men occurred in ancient times and goes on today, the nature of the act hasn't changed. It doesnt matter who does the homosexual or same sex act whether they are homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual the act is the same and condemned in scripture as in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1. We dont even need a specific condemnation of the homosexual act as we see sex is to be within a faithful man/woman marriage as in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, 1 corinthians 7, Ephesians and many other instances in the NT. There is no agenda, that is the only possible conclusion.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I was responding to someone else's post that, according to the linked article, seemed to claim that homosexuality didn't exist prior to our creating the word for it. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

brightmorningstar said:
But thats exactly what most Christians do not propose. Its a baseless argument. If marriage is broken by divorce and if one should not divorce because of fornication (Matthew 19) and Jesus teaches adultery and sexual immorality (pornos/fornication) are wrong (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21) where does any other sex get countenanced?

I didn't claim that homosexuality wasn't a sin in that post, what I did say is that it is in the same league as fornication and adultery -- again you are helping to make my point. To take it a step further, divorce itself is a sin -- as stated by Christ and often talked about in the Bible. Christ talked of divorce basically being a form of adultery (Matt. 5:32). Yet, roughly half of Christians divorce and, according to polls, around 95% of Christian youth commit fornication. My point is that it is so strange that we talk so much of the sin of homosexuality, many congregations ban those who struggle with same-sex attraction, yet we allow those who have committed fornication, divorce, and even adultery to be respected members of the congregation. I was simply speaking of what appears to be a huge double standard by some Christians.

SimplyMe · Dec 7, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Oh, this is a diliciously ironic declaration. ESPECIALLY since it is the gay advocates that are attempting to control via condemnation and hypersensitivity what language is used during generalized use.
Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language
or example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149572,00.html
http://washingtontimes.com/culture/20050314-102926-1147r.htm

Hmm... first you reference a style sheet from the APA from 1991 that basically states that "gay" is preferred to "homosexual", this is supposed to prove that gay advocates are attempting to control and are hypersensitive?

Then you quote an article and an opinion column, both of which refer to a single incident at Harvard University and strangely, no gay groups, other than Harvard University's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance seem to have joined in on the claim. You would think that if gays were so hypersensitive and controlling that national gay groups would have joined the fray. Perhaps it isn't gays being hypersensitive?

Further, the opinion column from Fox only talks of the one gay incident but talks of five other incidents of political correctness taken too far. Of course, it might not be quite so funny if you didn't appear to be hypersensitive in your next paragraph:

ChristianCenturion said:
Fornication and adultery are surely serious sins and in need of repentance; however, homosexuality is right there with them in offense and need of repentance. I would however caution about haphazardly making over-generalized statements against what is allegedly brothers and sisters in Christ. That too may qualify as an offense under slander if not considered carelessly bringing shame to the name of Christ.

Matthew 15:19
" For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Interesting that you feel it was a slander when it was "some Christians" mentioned and was even technically directed at Christians from over 100 years ago, those who were around when the word "homosexuality" was coined.

If you notice, I did not argue in that post that homosexuality wasn't a sin. In fact, I implied that it would be included as adultery and fornication and didn't need to be singled out. So, why do we single it out? And why, when it is not mentioned in Matt. 15:19 and yet adultery and fornication are listed along with murder, do some Christians seem to insist that homosexuality is a worse sin?

Last, before you think you can use my words to "win" the debate, I do feel that homosexual sex, just like heterosexual sex, is sinful in the eyes of God AND that it is no worse that heterosexual sex in the eyes of God. Where we still disagree is on the subject of homosexual marriage.

Faith In God · Dec 10, 2005

SimplyMe said:
Hmm... first you reference a style sheet from the APA from 1991 that basically states that "gay" is preferred to "homosexual", this is supposed to prove that gay advocates are attempting to control and are hypersensitive?

Then you quote an article and an opinion column, both of which refer to a single incident at Harvard University and strangely, no gay groups, other than Harvard University's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance seem to have joined in on the claim. You would think that if gays were so hypersensitive and controlling that national gay groups would have joined the fray. Perhaps it isn't gays being hypersensitive?

Further, the opinion column from Fox only talks of the one gay incident but talks of five other incidents of political correctness taken too far. Of course, it might not be quite so funny if you didn't appear to be hypersensitive in your next paragraph:

Interesting that you feel it was a slander when it was "some Christians" mentioned and was even technically directed at Christians from over 100 years ago, those who were around when the word "homosexuality" was coined.

If you notice, I did not argue in that post that homosexuality wasn't a sin. In fact, I implied that it would be included as adultery and fornication and didn't need to be singled out. So, why do we single it out? And why, when it is not mentioned in Matt. 15:19 and yet adultery and fornication are listed along with murder, do some Christians seem to insist that homosexuality is a worse sin?

Last, before you think you can use my words to "win" the debate, I do feel that homosexual sex, just like heterosexual sex, is sinful in the eyes of God AND that it is no worse that heterosexual sex in the eyes of God. Where we still disagree is on the subject of homosexual marriage.

There is no Biblical provision for homosexual marriage.

As for the government allowing it, what the government allows is allowed because either 1) it endorses it or 2) the majority of the people want it very much (that is why prohibition failed). But the government still sees it wrong: there are strict limits as to how much you can drink, at what age. Slavery was allowed because the people wanted it, but the nation was split over it, and 50/50 (give or take) is not a majority so the government wouldn't stand for it and outlawed it.

If homosexual marriage becomes legal, then it is a sign of government endorsement of the idea. But as for "Homosexuality from the Christian point of view",

Christendom does not equal US government.

CCGirl · Dec 10, 2005

butxifxnot said:
There is no Biblical provision for homosexual marriage.

As for the government allowing it, what the government allows is allowed because either 1) it endorses it or 2) the majority of the people want it very much (that is why prohibition failed). But the government still sees it wrong: there are strict limits as to how much you can drink, at what age. Slavery was allowed because the people wanted it, but the nation was split over it, and 50/50 (give or take) is not a majority so the government wouldn't stand for it and outlawed it.

If homosexual marriage becomes legal, then it is a sign of government endorsement of the idea. But as for "Homosexuality from the Christian point of view",

Christendom does not equal US government.

Actually, if the govt "allows" equal marriage, they are doing it because all people are equal under the law.

Just Me Garry · Dec 10, 2005

Did a google search for Christian and came across a so called Christian lesbian site.
I will not post link to this becasue it is an abomination to the Lord.

sethad · Dec 10, 2005

Just Me Garry said:
Did a google search for Christian and came across a so called Christian lesbian site.
I will not post link to this becasue it is an abomination to the Lord.

and the point of you posting that was...?

Homosexuality from a christian point of veiw.

What do you think of homosexuality?

it is wrong, immoral and un-ethical i shall try to convert peolple.

i disagree with it but as long as it dosent interfere with me...

im indifferent/ undecided

its ok with me whatever you wanna do God loves you

im gay and proud

other... (please specify in the forum if your opinion dosent generall fall under these options)

the frugal revolutionary

Jedi Master

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

the frugal revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

brightmorningstar

Guest

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!

Veteran / Tuebor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

A little FIG is all we need...

Resident Commie

Well-Known Member

I'm not [senDing sublimInal messagEs!]

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency