Homosexuality (Give me your opinion)

[Zaac]

And yet, although I repeatedly asked for the Biblical authorization of the categorization, you, nor anyone else, have never supplied it

What Biblical authorization are you looking for? Was there Biblical authorization for the categorization of the 10 Commandments?

The non-cultural laws were reinforced in the NT.

 

[Belk]

I personally have no desires to harm another human being. Thanks goodness for Jesus' sacrifice!

Nonetheless, as a sinner and and someone who has only received good from God, I'm not at this point in my life going to start doubting His plan. I only know He is only capable of good and incapable of wrong and that I can't understand all His plan.

Yet you will come and tell us that you feel being a homosexual is not part of it.

 

[Zaac]

I'm failing to see what this is supposed to prove. Isaiah says over and over again that the servant of the Lord is Israel. There is nothing to suggest that that has changed in this passage. But I'm backing out now, I would like to avoid a slap on the hand for this.

Who is the Holy One of Israel? It certainly isn't Israel.

 

[b&wpac4]

Who is the Holy One of Israel? It certainly isn't Israel.

God is the Holy One of Israel. My translation says:

7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you."

 

[Belk]

Because it's God's covenant. If you don't believe in God or that God exists, then there's no basis for explaining God's covenant.

I believe I see what you are saying. That it would simply be an intellectual exercise since it would not convince us of anything?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The response is there is only so much that can be said. A lot you can't understand without the aid of the Holy Spirit. But it is still rather difficult to explain the ways of God to someone who doesn't believe in God.

And so I say again, there's no basis for explaining the ways of God to you if you don't think God exists. All it does is make for debate.

Don't lament that non-Christians don't ask you why you believe what you believe if you outright refuse to explain. I'm willing to listen when you are. What Biblical basis is there for categorising the OT laws? How do you decide that Law #54 is to be in category X and not Y? What are the categories you place the laws into?

 

[catolico]

Yet you will come and tell us that you feel being a homosexual is not part of it.

It's not about how I feel.

It's about understanding God's will by what He has given us.

Based on this I know homosexuality is a sin and something that God does not desire for us. I also know I commit sins that God does not desire for me. We should all strive to examine our lives and confront the facts of our sinful nature so that we can repent and strive to do better. With this newfound sense of humility and gratefullness of God's love and mercy, we are energized to spread the good news and love our fellow man.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Considering that there is nothing inherently unethical or morally problematic about homosexuality - why should any non-Christian bother about a religious taboo that is not even part of his or her religion? And should a state that promotes freedom of religion as one of its core tenets promote the taboos of a specific faith, rather than restricting legislation to actual ethical/moral concerns?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Can you explain homosexuality to a child without using one anatomical reference? Without using any sexual terms whatsoever?

Obviously not.

Of course you can. I have, it’s not difficult.

If you can’t do so I think that says alot more about you than about gays and lesbians

 

[BigBadWlf]

David Brider,
But of course its not love according to God’s love.

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he hates all the same people that you do.” ~ Anne Lamott

 

[Belk]

It's not about how I feel.

It's about understanding God's will by what He has given us.

Based on this I know homosexuality is a sin and something that God does not desire for us. I also know I commit sins that God does not desire for me. We should all strive to examine our lives and confront the facts of our sinful nature so that we can repent and strive to do better. With this newfound sense of humility and gratefullness of God's love and mercy, we are energized to spread the good news and love our fellow man.

It is about how you feel. Unless you can claim some special insight you are in the exact same boat as everyone else who believed they understood Gods word. The people who believed the earth being flat was Gods word. The ones who believe the earth at the center of the universe was Gods word. Those who believe a literal flood was Gods word. Those who believe a 6 day creation was Gods word. All of them later shown to be incorrect. You at least have the humility to admit you do not know the entirety of Gods plan. Yet you will tell us you are picture perfect on parts of it.

 

[catolico]

Considering that there is nothing inherently unethical or morally problematic about homosexuality - why should any non-Christian bother about a religious taboo that is not even part of his or her religion? And should a state that promotes freedom of religion as one of its core tenets promote the taboos of a specific faith, rather than restricting legislation to actual ethical/moral concerns?

Good question if but for the fact that this is by all accounts a Christian forum concerned with all aspects of the Christian faith.

 

[BigBadWlf]

And I could have been one of them, but I'm not. I could have been born with both testes and ovaries, but I wasn't. If I were an LGTB person and had lived 31 years with LGTB experiences, I'd probably be on the other side of this whole debate.

Is your position on racial equality based on the color of your skin?

 

[BigBadWlf]

You completely missed my point.



LOL Sorry anytime I read comments like this it just hits me funny. Anything that goes against God's original design (which is what we find in Gen 1 & 2 it is the result and evidence of sins effect on our world. It would be completely contradictory to say God created animals with the predisposition to be homosexual) Since when do we take the exception and make it a rule.
The Animal Homosexuality Myth

I always find it sad when people try to use links from a recognized hate group to back them up

 

[catolico]

It is about how you feel. Unless you can claim some special insight you are in the exact same boat as everyone else who believed they understood Gods word. The people who believed the earth being flat was Gods word. The ones who believe the earth at the center of the universe was Gods word. Those who believe a literal flood was Gods word. Those who believe a 6 day creation was Gods word. All of them later shown to be incorrect. You at least have the humility to admit you do not know the entirety of Gods plan. Yet you will tell us you are picture perfect on parts of it.

With all due respect it would be hard, to say the least, to take seriously the opinion concerning the Bible and Christian faith of a person who by all accounts openly states they are Agnostic.

From MW:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

 

[Wicked Willow]

Good question if but for the fact that this is by all accounts a Christian forum concerned with all aspects of the Christian faith.

How does this being "a Christian forum concerned with all aspects of the Christian faith" nullify or contradict my question? Surely, the question of whether or not pushing for legislation based on specific religious taboos is ethical/ the "right thing to do" very much belongs here, in this very thread.

See, discussing whether Christianity needs to consider homosexuality a taboo based on scriptural exegesis is one part of the discussion (and I note that different Christians come to different conclusions with regards to that one), but that's far from the only question connected to the whole topic and its ramifications.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No it's not but twisting Scripture to make it say what wants it to say is,

Are you not demanding scripture say what you want it to say?

refusing to consider and listen to sound-doctrine is.

Are you not ignoring evidence that runs counter to your position?

Scripture is not open to random interpretation.

You say that as if differing interoperations were just made up and are without historic, linguistic, cultural and contextual support

The goal of interpretation is not to come up with the most unique interpretation (unique interpretations are usually wrong), but to discover the original intended meaning of a passage – the way the original audience understood it. Which is not what I am seeing happening here at all.

Historically 1 Corinthians was understood to condemn kidnappers and slave traders not homosexuals.
The condemnation of homosexuals is the new and unique interpretation.

My position and my response were not impolite in the least. Maybe it's just the way you were reading it. My position has been stated clear enough, it is the reader who is twisting it.

I believe that remark about impolite responses was pointed at me, not you

No but when it goes beyond that (which it has) it is. Sorry I believe twisting scripture

Doing research and coming to different conclusions than the conclusion you want isn’t twisting

to accept things that are unnatural

Except sexual orientation is natural

and God outside God's original design,

First: you don’t speak for God and are not arbitrator of what he had in mind about anything.
Second: There have been exhaustive lists about how modern people do things with body parts that they were not intended to do.

blatantly ignoring well-thought out, time-invested, well-stated responses to questions/arguments

Shiny shiny mirror

and/or replying twisting what the author had said just to get a rise out of them and/or to make themselves sound good or their argument to sound more legit is very much a mockery and not at all an intelligent discussion.

Again the mirror

 

[Belk]

With all due respect it would be hard, to say the least, to take seriously the opinion concerning the Bible and Christian faith of a person who by all accounts openly states they are Agnostic.

From MW:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agn&#333;stos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gn&#333;stos known, from gign&#333;skein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Which has what to do with the fact that there have been many Christians in the past who have been certain they where correct about the word of God yet facts latter proved them to be mistaken?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Men perfoming sexual acts in Old Testament times were stoned as in accordance with the book of Leviticus.

Which you cannot provide evidence for

The same tradition continues today in the Muslim religion.

Why would anyone here care?

 

[BigBadWlf]

So what are the reasons for that big ol' bunch of nerves in the rectum? Why do men need them and not women?
And what are the physical differences between pre-fall and post-fall humans?

Eve ate the apple and Adam got a “happy button” thanks...i needed a good laugh