Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[HisEagle]

You know why there are so many gay threads here? 'Cause people like you don't stay on topic but would rather flame other people.

No, the reason there are so many threads about homosexuality is because Christians are obsessed with shoving the subject down our throats.

 

[praying]

Why do you seek to remove the mote from thy brother's eye without first removing the beam from thy own eye? Remove first the beam, so that you may be able to see better to remove the mote from thy brother's eye.

Or, alternatively:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Or, alternatively:

Judge not, lest ye be judged

or alternatively don't tell me very rudely to "get over it... " and then tell me shalom.

 

[fevoldj2]

Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,” and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men?

Erm, I'd like to point out here, that homosexuality =/= sex.

 

[akaibara]

Erm, I'd like to point out here, that homosexuality =/= sex.

So I'm not the only one that realises that...

 

[HisEagle]

Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,” and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men?

Ummm...how about bestiality? Now THERE'S a subject I don't see being pounded into the ground.

But on the subject of "strange flesh" - did you ever stop to wonder that maybe it was referring to the angels? Did you wonder why the book of Jude doesn't just tell it like it is, if indeed it is referring to homosexuality? I mean, you yourself stated "the Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite"." Why didn't Jude simply use that terminology?

Not to mention, I presume you are aware that God had already decided to destroy the cities BEFORE He even sent the angels to warn Lot. So at the very least, His decision was not based on the incident at Lot's house.

 

[wmc1982]

gross, who said it wasn't a sin???

 

[lilymarie]

Ummm...how about bestiality? Now THERE'S a subject I don't see being pounded into the ground.

But on the subject of "strange flesh" - did you ever stop to wonder that maybe it was referring to the angels?

Well, if you want to prove this theory that the "strange flesh" described in Jude as it relates to Sodom and Gomorrah and back to Genesis, one would have to prove that the Sodomites (in the book of Genesis) knew the ones who came to visit Lot and look around Sodom were Angels.
This has no logical basis, IMO. I don't know of any accounts in The Bible that talk about people seeing Angels and wanting to have their flesh. I don't really think God's Angels have "flesh".

This theory of strange flesh in Jude/Genesis as being angels seems pretty far fetched to me.

 

[OObi]

If you give satan the credit for something which belongs to God only, then you break the first commandment. You make satan into God, and you worship him by your words.

Glad I haven't done such a thing then...

It is God who creates, not satan. It is God who makes people, not satan. It is God who determines who and what we are, from our mother's womb, not satan. It is also God who chooses to bestow the gift of homosexuality on both men and women, and the rest of us should thank him for that gift, imo. The world would be a far poorer place without gay people, and the gifts they bring to the world along with their sexual orientation, whether or not they express that orientation in a g****** way or not.

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...

Anyone looking at the contribution of gay people to our society will see tremendous life, tremendous creativity, and tremendous love. These things can only come from God.

Stop fooling yourself.

You are not called to tell other people of their sins. You are called only to concern yourself with your own sins.

I really hope that isn't the case because that wouldn't leave much room for witnessing:

Matthew 5:19 says that whoever teaches the commandments will be called great in Heaven. I consider this teaching the commandments.

Erm, I'd like to point out here, that homosexuality =/= sex.

I agree.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The context of that statement concerns a condemning attitude about. Condemning people, rather then the sin, something I am not doing.

I agree, that is pretty ridiculous. However, the satan given sexual orientation of homosexuals....

Not Ezekial, but rather you...

Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

Do we have two conflicting accounts of Sodom’s guilt in Scripture? Does Genesis focus on homosexuality, while the prophet Ezekiel accuses the city’s inhabitants of pride and inhospitality?

The two passages are actually in agreement, for Ezekiel does not ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. The prophet’s reference to the fact that Sodom “committed abominations” before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitants’ homosexual proclivities – especially with the Genesis story in the minds of Ezekiel’s hearers. After all, the Jews understood “abomination” as a common way of referring to grotesque sexual sin like homosexuality (Lev. 18:22).

Therefore, rather than being an unexpected revision of Scriptural history, Ezekiel’s reference to Sodom is a clear explanation of it, adding to the Genesis account, rather than contradicting it. The “arrogant self-indulgence” of Sodom’s citizens contributed to the sexual perversion.

In fact, this supposition fits more reasonably within the context of Ezekiel’s denunciation of Israel – who, after all, is the real subject of the prophet’s preaching. Israel’s harlotries and abominations, clearly laid out in the earlier portions of Ezekiel 16, are tied to the unfaithful nation’s own wealth and material blessings (vv. 10-14). Such luxury and arrogance, therefore, can lead to sexual perversion, and that would be the precise impact of Ezekiel’s reference to Sodom.

However, the attempt to deflect away from homosexuality the horror of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah receives its fatal blow from the New Testament. The epistles of both 2 Peter and Jude link Sodom’s guilt to carnality and sexual perversion.

In 2 Peter 2, the apostle said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah should serve as an example to the wicked of every generation (vs. 6). Lott, he said, continually witnessed “the sensual conduct of unprincipled men,” who, among other things, “indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires” (vv. 7, 10).

Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,” and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men?

While the two cursed cities may have been judged for more than their homosexuality, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed them.

Mr. OObi,

You do a very good job on the post quoted above.

All the Church spoke with one voice on this particular sin for almost two millennia. The Church fathers understood homosexuality to be sin, as did the rest of the church. It is only in recent times that we find "Christians" defending and trying to justify what the Bible calls sin.

These voices are not wiser than all that have come before, are they? I think not. Did these people discover what all the Church missed for two thousand years. I seriously doubt that.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Ummm...how about bestiality? Now THERE'S a subject I don't see being pounded into the ground.

But on the subject of "strange flesh" - did you ever stop to wonder that maybe it was referring to the angels? Did you wonder why the book of Jude doesn't just tell it like it is, if indeed it is referring to homosexuality? I mean, you yourself stated "the Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite"." Why didn't Jude simply use that terminology?

Not to mention, I presume you are aware that God had already decided to destroy the cities BEFORE He even sent the angels to warn Lot. So at the very least, His decision was not based on the incident at Lot's house.

Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (Exd 22:19)


Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deut. 27:21)

(If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. [Lev. 20:13])


I don't think anyone here has yet tried to claim that the Bible does not really teach that beastiality is a sin, as has been done countless time on the issue of the OP.


Perhaps we will yet see someone claim that the Scriptures allow monogamous beastiality and only condemns relationships with animals that are not monogamous. Someone may also claim that the Scriptures condemns heterosexuals who leave their natural orientation toward women and try animals instead, but for those born with a desire for animals (as God made them) it is ok.


Yes I am being facetious, but there are times for that.


Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ebia]

I'm writing this thread not so I can go out and condemn people for their sins. Rather, it seems that there is a lot of defense in the Christian community for this sin, and that shouldn't be. Do I write this in hopes that it will diminish efforts to try and defend what is clearly, Biblically, wrong.



Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality.

Because of several hundred years of anti-gay propaganda.

Gen 19:5-8
"and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'"

Does not support your point.

The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite".

Untrue. "Do not bear false witness".

(A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7.


Jude 7
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

Does not mention homosexuality. On the other hand, Ezekiel makes it quite explicit what the sin of Sodom was, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality and only a passing connection with sex. The sin for which Sodom was destroyed was greed and lack of charity - the same sin that the whole of Western Civilisation is currently guilty of .

Here are more Bible quotes,

Taken out of context with dubious translation.

 

[ebia]

The context of that statement concerns a condemning attitude about. Condemning people, rather then the sin, something I am not doing.




I agree, that is pretty ridiculous. However, the satan given sexual orientation of homosexuals....




Not Ezekial, but rather you...

Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

Do we have two conflicting accounts of Sodom’s guilt in Scripture? Does Genesis focus on homosexuality, while the prophet Ezekiel accuses the city’s inhabitants of pride and inhospitality?

Genesis doesn't even mention homosexuality. It describes RAPE (ie just about the most extreme act of inhospitablity possible).

The two passages are actually in agreement, for Ezekiel does not ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. The prophet’s reference to the fact that Sodom “committed abominations” before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitants’ homosexual proclivities – especially with the Genesis story in the minds of Ezekiel’s hearers. After all, the Jews understood “abomination” as a common way of referring to grotesque sexual sin like homosexuality (Lev. 18:22).

The word translated abomination in Lev 18:22 is one reserved for ritual sins, not sexual sins.

Therefore, rather than being an unexpected revision of Scriptural history, Ezekiel’s reference to Sodom is a clear explanation of it, adding to the Genesis account, rather than contradicting it. The “arrogant self-indulgence” of Sodom’s citizens contributed to the sexual perversion.

In fact, this supposition fits more reasonably within the context of Ezekiel’s denunciation of Israel – who, after all, is the real subject of the prophet’s preaching. Israel’s harlotries and abominations, clearly laid out in the earlier portions of Ezekiel 16, are tied to the unfaithful nation’s own wealth and material blessings (vv. 10-14). Such luxury and arrogance, therefore, can lead to sexual perversion, and that would be the precise impact of Ezekiel’s reference to Sodom.

However, the attempt to deflect away from homosexuality the horror of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah receives its fatal blow from the New Testament. The epistles of both 2 Peter and Jude link Sodom’s guilt to carnality and sexual perversion.

Rest of the attempt to justify ignoring the condemnations made by the prophets of which we are all guilty, in favour of manipulating it to justify persecuting a few.

In 2 Peter 2, the apostle said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah should serve as an example to the wicked of every generation (vs. 6).

Indeed it should - to a western world that does all the things Ezekiel condemns them for.

Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,” and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men?

Circular argument.

While the two cursed cities may have been judged for more than their homosexuality, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed them.

Not a single biblical source includes homosexuality in the list - it is you who are adding to the bible.

 

[ebia]

Matthew 5:19 says that whoever teaches the commandments will be called great in Heaven. I consider this teaching the commandments.

Then you have missed the point. Matthew 23 has strong words to say to those who "teach the commandments" in the way you do.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Genesis doesn't even mention homosexuality. It describes RAPE (ie just about the most extreme act of inhospitablity possible).

It mentions homosexual rape.

The word translated abomination in Lev 18:22 is one reserved for ritual sins, not sexual sins.

You base that on what? Liberal hermanutics? I'm sure there was heterosexual ritual sins as well, why aren't they mentioned? (that's besides the uncleaness rituals) Why didn't he just say ritual sex? Why would he point out homosexuals in particular?

Rest of the attempt to justify ignoring the condemnations made by the prophets of which we are all guilty, in favour of manipulating it to justify persecuting a few.

Indeed even the righoutous

Indeed it should - to a western world that does all the things Ezekiel condemns them for.

Indeed, especially the justifcation of sin.

Circular argument.

Reinforces the sin in Genesis.

Not a single biblical source includes homosexuality in the list - it is you who are adding to the bible.

Romans 1:26...answer my question in the other thread please.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Then you have missed the point. Matthew 23 has strong words to say to those who "teach the commandments" in the way you do.

Actually it's more like 1 Corinthians 5:9-12.

 

[David Brider]

The notion that "homosexuality is a sin" rather depends on how you're defining homosexuality.

David.

 

[Catherineanne]

Glad I haven't done such a thing then...

You do it all the time. In this answer too.

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...

That is a non sequitur, and has no bearing on this case. God created men and women, and created some of them with same sex orientation. Some choose to express that in same sex relations, some choose to sublimate it into art, religion etc. You, however, lump all such people together and condemn them all. You outGod God every time. Good luck with that.

Stop fooling yourself.

Projection.

I really hope that isn't the case because that wouldn't leave much room for witnessing:

Matthew 5:19 says that whoever teaches the commandments will be called great in Heaven. I consider this teaching the commandments.

It matters not a jot what you consider your words to be. All that matters is what God has to say, and one of the first things he says is that he does not like anyone taking his place.

You cannot take one 'sin' out of Scripture, and manufacture your own religion, with yourself as the god of it, determining what is and what is not sin, and then expect other people to go along with that. Such an approach distorts the heart of the gospel, which is love and reconciliation.

I cannot imagine for one moment Christ taking the position which you are taking. Christ did not ever, one single time, open his mouth without first feeling the deepest compassion for the person he was addressing.

In my opinion, you have no right to 'teach the commandments' to anyone whom you do not first love. If you do not love gay people, then you have no right whatever to speak to them of God, for the simple reason that you are not qualified to do so, and must therefore refrain. Otherwise you become what Paul condemned most of all; the Christian without love, who is as a clashing gong and a sounding cymbal.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You do it all the time. In this answer too.




That is a non sequitur, and has no bearing on this case. God created men and women, and created some of them with same sex orientation. Some choose to express that in same sex relations, some choose to sublimate it into art, religion etc. You, however, lump all such people together and condemn them all. You outGod God every time. Good luck with that.




Projection.




It matters not a jot what you consider your words to be. All that matters is what God has to say, and one of the first things he says is that he does not like anyone taking his place.

You cannot take one 'sin' out of Scripture, and manufacture your own religion, with yourself as the god of it, determining what is and what is not sin, and then expect other people to go along with that. Such an approach distorts the heart of the gospel, which is love and reconciliation.

I cannot imagine for one moment Christ taking the position which you are taking. Christ did not ever, one single time, open his mouth without first feeling the deepest compassion for the person he was addressing.

In my opinion, you have no right to 'teach the commandments' to anyone whom you do not first love. If you do not love gay people, then you have no right whatever to speak to them of God, for the simple reason that you are not qualified to do so, and must therefore refrain. Otherwise you become what Paul condemned most of all; the Christian without love, who is as a clashing gong and a sounding cymbal.

When you provide scripture that God made gays then you have an argument other that your whole argument falls apart. Not to mention we are to love everyone (gays include) just not their sin (homosexuality).

 

[intricatic]

You do it all the time. In this answer too.

That is a non sequitur, and has no bearing on this case. God created men and women, and created some of them with same sex orientation. Some choose to express that in same sex relations, some choose to sublimate it into art, religion etc. You, however, lump all such people together and condemn them all. You outGod God every time. Good luck with that.

Projection.

It matters not a jot what you consider your words to be. All that matters is what God has to say, and one of the first things he says is that he does not like anyone taking his place.

You cannot take one 'sin' out of Scripture, and manufacture your own religion, with yourself as the god of it, determining what is and what is not sin, and then expect other people to go along with that. Such an approach distorts the heart of the gospel, which is love and reconciliation.

I cannot imagine for one moment Christ taking the position which you are taking. Christ did not ever, one single time, open his mouth without first feeling the deepest compassion for the person he was addressing.

In my opinion, you have no right to 'teach the commandments' to anyone whom you do not first love. If you do not love gay people, then you have no right whatever to speak to them of God, for the simple reason that you are not qualified to do so, and must therefore refrain. Otherwise you become what Paul condemned most of all; the Christian without love, who is as a clashing gong and a sounding cymbal.

This is a very circular argument. "God created all people with same sex orientation, therefore you are being hateful towards people with same-sex orientation."

The reason it's circular is that you've not provided any evidence to support your thesis, because none exists, and you've misrepresented the position of a person you know nothing about in order to justify the argument itself. Do you know whether any given person on this thread hates homosexuals? Do you know whether or not this is just a case of doctrinal defense with no personal implications? This argument seems to be of the same spirit as the rest of the arguments on this thread, so I presume this is showing just as much love as they are?

 

[ReformedChapin]

This is a very circular argument. "God created all people with same sex orientation, therefore you are being hateful towards people with same-sex orientation."

The reason it's circular is that you've not provided any evidence to support your thesis, because none exists, and you've misrepresented the position of a person you know nothing about in order to justify the argument itself. Do you know whether any given person on this thread hates homosexuals? Do you know whether or not this is just a case of doctrinal defense with no personal implications? This argument seems to be of the same spirit as the rest of the arguments on this thread, so I presume this is showing just as much love as they are?

Sounds more like a strawman argument to me.

My favorite is the "everyone is a sinner so we should accept homosexuals as they are." That implies that we should accept all sin in the church, that means an unrepentant murder can lead the church like any other or an unbeliever.