Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Dogbean]

Skin color and sexual orientation are entirely different issues. Those attempting to mate them as part of the same argument are only looking to disingenuously accuse of prejudice (bigotry) those that believe in the biblical teaching that the homosexual act is wrong. This fallacious dual argument also serves to add loaded emotion to attempt to gain approval in an issue that is so plainly unbiblical.

The bible plainly states that the homosexual act is not part of God's creation. No prejudice. Just plain biblical truth.

The problem is that most of the people who condone homosexuality reject the Bible. We can give them the Biblical argument until we're blue in the face, but if they don't accept the Bible as authoritative, we're wasting our time. How do we proceed then? The argument usually proceeds into a discussion about the validity of the Bible. And most of them think it's flawed.

 

[NaLuvena]

And people that think they are not sinners are deceived, because the only person who ever lived, is living, or will live who never sinned is Jesus Christ. That is why it took His death to save us. Even Christians sin, so we're no better than a homosexual lost in sin, deceived into thinking that homosexuality is condoned by God.

I agree.

 

[Zeena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

 

[LightSeaker]

And people that think they are not sinners are deceived, ......

Sinner, that, I am.

.

 

[davedjy]

The problem is that most of the people who condone homosexuality reject the Bible. We can give them the Biblical argument until we're blue in the face, but if they don't accept the Bible as authoritative, we're wasting our time. How do we proceed then? The argument usually proceeds into a discussion about the validity of the Bible. And most of them think it's flawed.

1) I have always made my arguments believing the Bible is authoritative, and there are plenty of credible Christian Scholars that would argue against your point (e.g. Walter Wink and Remert Truluck). The key word in your quote is MOST of the people...not all. There are plenty of people that reject the Bible altogether. It is convenient to say what you do, because all the people that believe homosexuality is sin do so because they are Fundamentalists. You won't find a Fundamentalist that rejects the Bible as authoritative, obviously...

2) Interpretation of what the texts are saying is key to knowledge. The context of the verses, translations, the historical context, etc., need to be taken into careful consideration.

 

[wayseer]

The problem is that most of the people who condone homosexuality reject the Bible.

There is your black and white definition - those who find that there is nothing 'sinful' about homosexuality reject the Bible. I reject the Bible as authoritative on a number of matters - including the fact that sun does not revolve around the earth. So, Yes, the Bible is flawed in light of science. That does not mean I reject the Bible as my guide to spiritual growth

 

[one11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

The wikipedia has some flaws or a lot of flaws and these are written by people who are not scholars.

Here's a flaw I found in that wiki

Christian scholars and clerics often have disagreements about the meaning of specific texts, with the writings on Sodom and Gomorrah being no different. The latter view, while being the most common in modern times, is actually the least historical. The word, "sodomy" which first appeared in the 17th century KJV was then used simply to mean wickedness. Modern scholars in favor of the "homosexuality" theory point to two major parts of the Bible

sod⋅om⋅y

   /ˈsɒd

ə

mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3. bestiality (def. 4).
Origin:
1250&#8211;1300; ME sodomie < OF. See Sodom, -y 3

Here's the link to 2009 definitions of sodomy: Please scroll down on the link as there is another definition from 2006

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy

 

[Polycarp1]

The problem is that most of the people who condone homosexuality reject the Bible. We can give them the Biblical argument until we're blue in the face, but if they don't accept the Bible as authoritative, we're wasting our time. How do we proceed then? The argument usually proceeds into a discussion about the validity of the Bible. And most of them think it's flawed.

Allow me to make something clear -- two things, actually..

First, a point of view that sees no sin, or at least no behavior requiring denouncing, in two gay persons living in a committed monogamous relationship is not necessarily "condoning homosexuality" -- it may very well consider the behavior condemned in Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, etc., as abominable sins -- and not believe that the aforementioned monogamous relationship is what the commandments are addressing. (Kind of like all the varieties of evangelical that don't think the commandment in Titus to establish bishops in every city to manage the affairs of the church, means what it clearly says, don't you know?)

Second, rejection of the modern man-made doctrine that every word of the Bible not clearly obvious as parable or poetry is to be taken as precisely factual reportage, as if God were publishing Time magazine, is not "rejection of the Bible" -- even if some people find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea. Some of us have more respect for the Bible and its Inspirer than to play those sorts of stupid games with it.

 

[Polycarp1]

Skin color and sexual orientation are entirely different issues. Those attempting to mate them as part of the same argument are only looking to disingenuously accuse of prejudice (bigotry) those that believe in the biblical teaching that the homosexual act is wrong. This fallacious dual argument also serves to add loaded emotion to attempt to gain approval in an issue that is so plainly unbiblical.

The bible plainly states that the homosexual act is not part of God's creation. No prejudice. Just plain biblical truth.

The argument is, for the thousandth time, that just as skin color is unchangeable absent a miracle (and Michael Jackson's skin disease does not count as 'changing skin color' any more than melanoma skin cancer does), so too is the sexual orientation of a homosexual (not a bisexual, who is a distinct kettle of fish) -- unchangeable by one's own effort, absent a miracle. And, further, though you, Hentenza, and a few others may carefully make the distinction, the overwhelming majority of those who condemn and/or bash homosexual people are condemning them for their orientation, not for their putative acts. Ask any eighth grader what 'being gay' is, and pay attention to the answer -- that's your LCD of modern usage.

Now, if you look at my faith icon, you'll see the Celtic cross of Anglicanism. That means, among other things, that I and my fellow Anglicans rejected the idea that some self-aggrandizing goombah running around Rome in a gold-embroidered bathrobe (sorry, Catholic brethren!) has the authority to define for us what God says is moral or immoral, true or lie. And what we reject from a Pope, we are darn well not going to accept from some Baptist or Pentecostal layman who flips open his Bible and says, in effect, it's God's law, not mine -- when what he's doing is putting his own spin on what the Scripture means, same as the Pope was. Don't like the comparison of yourself to the Roman Pontiff? Then knock off the pontificating.

 

[one11]

Allow me to make something clear -- two things, actually..

First, a point of view that sees no sin, or at least no behavior requiring denouncing, in two gay persons living in a committed monogamous relationship is not necessarily "condoning homosexuality" -- it may very well consider the behavior condemned in Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, etc., as abominable sins -- and not believe that the aforementioned monogamous relationship is what the commandments are addressing. (Kind of like all the varieties of evangelical that don't think the commandment in Titus to establish bishops in every city to manage the affairs of the church, means what it clearly says, don't you know?)

Second, rejection of the modern man-made doctrine that every word of the Bible not clearly obvious as parable or poetry is to be taken as precisely factual reportage, as if God were publishing Time magazine, is not "rejection of the Bible" -- even if some people find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea. Some of us have more respect for the Bible and its Inspirer than to play those sorts of stupid games with it.

Some other parts of the Epistles say to appoint deacons, elders and overseers. Paul was dealing with a lot of early sects of early Christiandom. And then Paul resolved this by the scripture that says "one man sees one day as holier than other, one abstains from meat while the other one eats"... etc, but Paul's point was who are we to judge God's servant in how they worship.

I see some problems coming from this LGBT community in that for one transgenders (people who want to change their sex) are not "gay" per se because let's say a man wants to become a woman and does so, then would that love for that person in their now changed sex still exist if they were in a same sex relationship? Most likely, not. And also transgenders are changing their sex to have a heterosexual relationship, not a homosexual relationship. Nor is this LBGT community addressing the issues of abuse or neglegence nor the missing father figure which causes some people to be homosexuals.

On the other hand, this LGBT community has brought about some insights into certain scriptures I would have never known before, such as the Greco Roman pagan sexual rituals or orgies.

However, being connected solely to this LGBT community to find your spiritual relationship with God is not the best path, imo. Each person should pray and ask God about it. Jesus said seek Him and we shall find.

Also, while I believe all parterned homosexuals should have full protection of their families through the secular concept of same sex unions, I cannot see same sex marriage in the Christian church, not to mention a lot of other religions see marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also there is the legal problem of consummation. A marriage is not a legal marriage until it is comsummated through sexual intercourse. So, what are the courts going to define sexual intercourse as for consummation, and if the definition is changed from penile/vaginal intercourse will then all forms of consumation be consumation for the heterosexual community too? I mean to be real here, how can a female/female consummate through sexual intercourse? And if anal intercourse is on par with penile/vaginal intercourse, does this give a heterosexual man the same right to use anal intercourse as consumation with his heterosexual partner?

Another point I'd like to make is the myriad of Bible translations are causing some confusion. If the Christian community could all agree on one Bible, I think we'd have a stronger vehicle to be a better united "church". However, a Pope in middle ages declared anyone who doesn't agree with the apocrypha anathema, therefore because of this one Pope, we can now never agree on one Bible ever because a Pope is considered infallible.

 

[HaloHope]

Your choice is whether to act on that attraction or not. Satan deceives many of us into thinking that what we do is ok when it is really not. That's why he is called the father of lies. He plants doubt in our minds, just like when he told Adam and Eve that God really wouldn't be mad if they ate the apple.

Why would it be wrong to act on the attraction? In a monogamous relationship of course.

To be fair though, sex isnt really important to me whatsoever, I could easily live without it. Im with my partner as I love her, want to share my life with her and treasure every moment of her company. Sex is sometimes a way we express how much we love each other, thats all, why would God be angry about that? I couldnt get that from a relationship with a guy, and I certainly couldnt do anything sexual with a guy. Why would God deny me a relationsip due to how I seem to be hard wired?

 

[Hentenza]

The argument is, for the thousandth time, that just as skin color is unchangeable absent a miracle (and Michael Jackson's skin disease does not count as 'changing skin color' any more than melanoma skin cancer does), so too is the sexual orientation of a homosexual (not a bisexual, who is a distinct kettle of fish) -- unchangeable by one's own effort, absent a miracle. And, further, though you, Hentenza, and a few others may carefully make the distinction, the overwhelming majority of those who condemn and/or bash homosexual people are condemning them for their orientation, not for their putative acts. Ask any eighth grader what 'being gay' is, and pay attention to the answer -- that's your LCD of modern usage.

Now, if you look at my faith icon, you'll see the Celtic cross of Anglicanism. That means, among other things, that I and my fellow Anglicans rejected the idea that some self-aggrandizing goombah running around Rome in a gold-embroidered bathrobe (sorry, Catholic brethren!) has the authority to define for us what God says is moral or immoral, true or lie. And what we reject from a Pope, we are darn well not going to accept from some Baptist or Pentecostal layman who flips open his Bible and says, in effect, it's God's law, not mine -- when what he's doing is putting his own spin on what the Scripture means, same as the Pope was. Don't like the comparison of yourself to the Roman Pontiff? Then knock off the pontificating.

Polycarp,

It is obvious to me that you hold very little stock on what others 'think" including the pope but, perhaps subconsciously, you find it necessary to condemn others that do not share your views as bigots and racists and therefore, are just as guilty of the same bigotry that you claim to abhor. I couldn't care less if you "think" that I am "pontificating". It really matters little to me. If you look at my bible icon you should also understand that I do not hold stock on other churches authority including the liberal branch of the Anglican church.

As I said in my post, equating skin color racism (or any kind of racism) to believing the clear bible evidence that the homosexual act is not of God creation is disingenuous and only serves to emotionally load the argument since it proves absolutely nothing. With that said, please debate the topic on its own merits.

 

[OllieFranz]

Polycarp,

It is obvious to me that you hold very little stock on what others 'think" including the pope but, perhaps subconsciously, you find it necessary to condemn others that do not share your views as bigots and racists and therefore, are just as guilty of the same bigotry that you claim to abhor. I couldn't care less if you "think" that I am "pontificating". It really matters little to me. If you look at my bible icon you should also understand that I do not hold stock on other churches authority including the liberal branch of the Anglican church.

I can't recall a single post in which Polycarp1 called anyone a bigot. He usually takes the high road and does not involve himself in the parts of these discussions that degenerate from the racist argument. He only got involved here because of the sweeping generalzation made by the post he quoted claiming that anyone who did not view the issue exactly as that poster clearly did not accept the Bible.

Also, most* of those making the "comparison" are not comparing you to racists. They say nothing about your beliefs or feelings whatsoever, but they do look at the arguments you post, and except for the specific verses included and the name of the behavior protested, the arguments you post are identical.

*There are a few, fortunately very few, who do consider you to be bigotted, but then for every viewpoint there are extemists whose statements make the more reasonable people in the same camp cringe.

As I said in my post, equating skin color racism (or any kind of racism) to believing the clear bible evidence that the homosexual act is not of God creation is disingenuous and only serves to emotionally load the argument since it proves absolutely nothing. With that said, please debate the topic on its own merits.

And I agree up to a point. Your viewpoint is not the same as a racist's viewpoint. You have explained that. But your argument is the same argument. You need to explain why an argument which was discredited is suddenly valid. Or use a different argument.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No it isn't.

Heterosexism is a term that applies to attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the norm and therefore superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism

Nothing that I said resembles heterosexism. My belief is the biblical belief that the homosexual act is not part of God's creation.

The statement "the homosexual act is not part of God's creation" is a presumptive, hate-filled irrational statement of opinion saying that the loves of those with differing capacities to love from your own are not as good as your own and that of other heterosexuals. There is no basis for it whatsoever other than irrational prejudices. it is used to advocate discrimination as the antigay faction does on this forum. IOW, you just said the equivalent of "I don't like eggs" and then followed it with "I don't like chicken embryos".

 

[Hentenza]

I can't recall a single post in which Polycarp1 called anyone a bigot. He usually takes the high road and does not involve himself in the parts of these discussions that degenerate from the racist argument. He only got involved here because of the sweeping generalzation made by the post he quoted claiming that anyone who did not view the issue exactly as that poster clearly did not accept the Bible.

Also, most* of those making the "comparison" are not comparing you to racists. They say nothing about your beliefs or feelings whatsoever, but they do look at the arguments you post, and except for the specific verses included and the name of the behavior protested, the arguments you post are identical.

*There are a few, fortunately very few, who do consider you to be bigotted, but then for every viewpoint there are extemists whose statements make the more reasonable people in the same camp cringe.

Ollie,

There are many ways to use variations of speech to suggest bigotry. The problem that I have is using the race card to defend an argument regarding the homosexual act. My position has been that they are different issues with different points of discussion. There are some here that have used the race card to suggest that those that disagree that the homosexual act is wrong are bigots and racists. That should make folks here cringe.

I will agree with you that some of the more extreme folks have not shown Christlike behavior in their characterization of homosexuals in general. I consider that wrong, however, there can not be a generalization made to include all or even most folks that simply disagree. My response that was quoted expressed this.

And I agree up to a point. Your viewpoint is not the same as a racist's viewpoint. You have explained that. But your argument is the same argument. You need to explain why an argument which was discredited is suddenly valid. Or use a different argument.

Sorry Ollie but you lost me here. What argument that has been discredited are you referring to?

 

[Texas Lynn]

... equating skin color racism (or any kind of racism) to believing the clear bible evidence that the homosexual act is not of God creation is disingenuous and only serves to emotionally load the argument since it proves absolutely nothing. With that said, please debate the topic on its own merits.

Both are immoral acts and irrational and based on nothing but superstition and prejudice. The Bible has been used as a defense for ethnocentrism since time immemorial.

It matters not what factors lead to bigotry or in what subcategoty of bigotries it is; bigotry is still bigotry no matter how you slice it. To say "Well, this victim is undeserving, but this one deserves opprobrium" is merely an attempt to justify one's bad behavior. Racism is bad and so is homophobia and heterosexism.

 

[Hentenza]

The statement "the homosexual act is not part of God's creation" is a presumptive, hate-filled irrational statement of opinion saying that the loves of those with differing capacities to love from your own are not as good as your own and that of other heterosexuals. There is no basis for it whatsoever other than irrational prejudices. it is used to advocate discrimination as the antigay faction does on this forum. IOW, you just said the equivalent of "I don't like eggs" and then followed it with "I don't like chicken embryos".

I disagree with you. The homosexual act is not part of God's creation. That is not a hate-filled statement since it happens to be true. This is not my opinion either since a simple reading of Genesis confirms that. My argument in no way shows discrimination against homosexuals and your misinterpretation and accusation is not appreciated.

Unless you can biblically prove that God created homosexual sex then all you have is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Zeena]

The wikipedia has some flaws or a lot of flaws and these are written by people who are not scholars.

Here's a flaw I found in that wiki

Christian scholars and clerics often have disagreements about the meaning of specific texts, with the writings on Sodom and Gomorrah being no different. The latter view, while being the most common in modern times, is actually the least historical. The word, "sodomy" which first appeared in the 17th century KJV was then used simply to mean wickedness. Modern scholars in favor of the "homosexuality" theory point to two major parts of the Bible

sod&#8901;om&#8901;y

&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;s&#594;d

&#601;

mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA Pronunciation
&#8211;noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3. bestiality (def. 4).
Origin:
1250&#8211;1300; ME sodomie < OF. See Sodom, -y 3

Here's the link to 2009 definitions of sodomy: Please scroll down on the link as there is another definition from 2006

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy

My intuition informed me that would come up, which is why I prepared Scripture text in context;

Judges 19:20-25
20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...

Unless you can biblically prove that God created homosexual sex then all you have is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

If you believe that all animals were created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis then the fact that homosexual acts exist in the animal kingdom is the biblical proof that you seek.

 

[Hentenza]

If you believe that all animals were created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis then the fact that homosexual acts exist in the animal kingdom is the biblical proof that you seek.

Animals are not created in God's image (only "man" is) and are of different "flesh" than humans (1 Cor 15:39). Animal feral behavior can not be used to justify God's creation of "man".