Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.
God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.
But it doesn't make sense to me that God would create a whole orieintation of people who cannot create life themselves because of mental reasons, homosexuality, not physical reasons, sterility.
(the Bible doesn't say that people ARE born gay, either...)
(sorry...just had to toss that in...)
Absolutely. And, the point that some people seem never to grasp; some sex within marriage is sinful.
It is about relationship, and how we treat one another. In that context, treating one's spouse in a disrespectful or abusive way, even with the sanction of a piece of paper, is a sin.
To reduce God and his judgment of us to a kind of Janet and John sit up straight, be good, don't do that, be quiet kind of list of rules and regulations is to diminish the Almighty to Kindergarten level, imo. Or, to use a modern metaphor, imo God is not digital, but analogue.
Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean a person who is sterile.Are you sure?
Matthew 19 v 12
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs wo have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.
In case anyone misses the point, Christ cannot mean castrati here, because there is no such thing as a castratus born from his mother's womb. He is using the term eunuch to denote abstinence from normal sexual activity.
Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean castrati or a person who is sterile.
Your right that I did miss speak about the castrati part of my post. I'm sorry.Catherineanne just said that it could not mean castrati. A castrati is made by accident or intent when the male reproductive organs (testes) are removed from the body. There's even a more rarely practiced version called "complete castration" that involves the removal of all external "equipment".
And ancient Greek has a word for infertile. There wouldn't be a good reason to say "eunuch" if you just mean "infertile".
Infertile men aren't eunuchs in fact or behavior. Most infertile men function normally beyond that small difference, and have natural sexual urges.
Besides, it was the practice of the day to presume all difficulty in having children was the woman's fault. Men, generally speaking, weren't considered infertile. Instead their wives were blamed with being barren.
Do you think Jesus thought that women were always for fault of not having babies, whether or not it was thought by the people of the day?Catherineanne just said that it could not mean castrati. A castrati is made by accident or intent when the male reproductive organs (testes) are removed from the body. There's even a more rarely practiced version called "complete castration" that involves the removal of all external "equipment".
And ancient Greek has a word for infertile. There wouldn't be a good reason to say "eunuch" if you just mean "infertile".
Infertile men aren't eunuchs in fact or behavior. Most infertile men function normally beyond that small difference, and have natural sexual urges.
Besides, it was the practice of the day to presume all difficulty in having children was the woman's fault. Men, generally speaking, weren't considered infertile. Instead their wives were blamed with being barren.
Do you think Jesus thought that women were always for fault of not having babies, whether or not it was thought by the people of the day?
Just a question.
Because the eunuch verse was said by Jesus, so it is of no significance whether or not other people thought that it was the womens fault for lost babies.No. Why would you ask, since I said nothing of the sort?
Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean a person who is sterile.
Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean a person who is sterile.
Do you think Jesus thought that women were always for fault of not having babies, whether or not it was thought by the people of the day?
Just a question.
God did not create sin. Satan uses sin to tempt people. When God created heterosexuals, He unfortunately also created homosexualty. Not what He wants. But because this is true, using it as a defense for your position is like saying since God created hands, killing someone with your hands is not a sin but rather "beautiful" as you seem to be saying...
It isn't quite so clear as you think. I know full well what the Bible says in English translations, which are interpretations as well. However, I think you should accept that there are many people who think the Bible is not clear at all, and that stable, loving relationships between two people of the same sex are not sinful.
You don't have to agree with this - that is your prerogative, but you do have to accept that others think differently.
However many scripture verses you quote, there are other interpretations. Which are just as valid as yours.
And please note I am talking about loving, stable and committed relationships, and this applies to BOTH homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Casual sex, promiscuity, abuse, and fornication are clearly wrong whether between people of the opposite sex or of the same sex.
And I would have thought this whole subject has been done to death. It has already driven one christian person off these Forums. Why do you have to bring it up again.
Or is it, as I said in another thread, US Christians are obsessed with sex?
So if two women, for example, love each other and are committed to long term stable relationships that makes it not a sin? [/quote
Correct.
Not at all. Jesus wasn't trying to define the extent of marriage, nor require all men to marry a woman. He was saying that marriage cannot be disolved by a divorcce.Jesus messed up when He said that a "man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be called one flesh."
Neither Genesis nor Jesus' words in Matthew say 'only'. You have added that word.Jesus repeated in Matthew what God said in the book of Genesis: male with female ONLY.
The bible certainly forbids fornication, but it doesn't define it, nor marriage.The Bible also forbids fornication, or sex outside the bonds of marriage.
No He hasn't. The bible does not directly address the possibility either way.So God forbids two women or two men getting married,
A permanent, loving, committed, faithful, consentual relationship IS marriage.and he also forbids them having sex together, both, regardless of whether or not they are in "long-term, loving, committed relationships."
I know many who have asked him to do this. I know of no reliable evidence that he ever has. I do know of people who have temporarily managed to convince themselves they have changed but none who have managed to sustain the lie indefinitely.The only thing they can do is stop being homosexual, and ask God to change them. God can and will do this for the repentant homosexual. God can make them heterosexual...
I know many who have asked him to do this. I know of no reliable evidence that he ever has. I do know of people who have temporarily managed to convince themselves they have changed but none who have managed to sustain the lie indefinitely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?