Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[Catherineanne]

I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.

I love it when people are reduced to ridicule when they have nothing meaningful to say. I guess it reassures them that actually, they did have something to say, after all.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

Are we talking about the same thing? I thought this was about same sex orientation, not genocide, infanticide, global warming, environmental destruction or elephant poaching.

It would appear that the gift of sense of due proportion would appear to be somewhat lacking here.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

It has clearly escaped your notice that there is more to life than having as many babies as possible, and bringing them up. It is a great gift when God grants children to us, but there are other creative gifts unique to mankind. We have the fine and performing arts. We have literature. We have architecture. We have all sorts of ways of expressing our God given creativity.

And it is in these areas, where it is no coincidence that gay people florish, that their contributions are invaluable and irreplaceable. Calling such people sterile is rather ironic, if you have even half an idea of their contributions. It is about time we stopped harping on about what x and y do in the bedroom, like some kind of twisted voyeurs, and look at what they do outside the bedroom, in terms of giving to mankind as a whole.

Which of us can stand the thought of our own parents doing that which resulted in us having life? If you can't do it there, then stop doing it for same sex relations. The act of union is a beautiful and blessed thing, but it is not a spectator sport, even in the imagination.

The Bible tells us not to uncover one another's nakedness, because this is a sin. Imo, this includes imagining other people's sexual behaviours, and then delighting in our own disgust.

Whatever is good, whatever is pure, whatever is holy; think on these things. Just like your own mum and dad, who only ever held hands in bed, wearing pyjamas and a dressing gown, and found you one day under the gooseberry bush.

 

[Catherineanne]

(the Bible doesn't say that people ARE born gay, either...)

(sorry...just had to toss that in... )

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.

 

[Konkurrent]

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.

Another way to say it is that God sees and cares about what's in your heart more than the minutia of your actions. It's less important whether you say "fudge" or another word that sounds similar than the "heart" behind the utterance of those words.

Sweet words can be spoken with unbounded venom.

 

[ThirdDay3337]

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 a person who is sterile.

 

[Konkurrent]

Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean castrati or a person who is sterile.

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.

 

[ThirdDay3337]

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.

Your right that I did miss speak about the castrati part of my post. I'm sorry.

 

[ThirdDay3337]

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.

 

[Konkurrent]

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.

No. Why would you ask, since I said nothing of the sort?

 

[ThirdDay3337]

No. Why would you ask, since I said nothing of the sort?

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.

 

[Konkurrent]

You said:

Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean a person who is sterile.

I countered this by showing how the issue of sterility would not be what's being spoken about here. Part of the illustration was that there's a word for infertility that's seperate from the word for eunuch. Another part was that the people of the time were not likely to relate to the concept of male infertility.

The point is that he's not talking about natural infertility, and there's a number of reasons why.

 

[Catherineanne]

Being a eunuch from the mother's womb could mean a person who is sterile.

You think so? But why use this word, when they already had one, in everyday use; barren (generally used of women, because they were regarded as the field, and the man's input as the seed to the field. In a barren field, the seed could not grow, but the seed was always fine. As ever.)

This passage is clearly not about having children, because it does not mention those who marry and are infertile. It is about (normal) sexual abstinence, and the reasons for it; Being gay. Being castrated. Chosing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

It might help to put this in the context of Jewish belief, which is that a single man is only half a person, and that in order to be complete, he needs to take a wife. Jesus and his disciples are clearly going against the grain on this one, and this is his answer to why this is. In relation to his culture, Jesus as an unmarried man is an anomaly. In this list he gives us three possible reasons why someone might choose his lifestyle. And the one he puts last is, by implication, the one that applies to him, and which has applied to saints through the ages since.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

It is clear from another example that Jesus did not share the prevalent value judgements about misfortune, and may well have been more open minded about this one, too.

When asked who sinned, the blind man or his parents, that he was born blind, Our Lord replied 'neither'.

Hellenic belief (current in first century) said that the child was the product of the man, but born of the woman, as a container, but with no input. The sperm was a tiny homunculus or mini person, which was planted into the womb. Boy children were perfect, while girl children were 'misbegoten males'. Interestingly enough, by this definition, Christ would be fully God, and not at all human, and yet the church has never taught that, so someone somewhere knew better.

It would not take much observation of children and their similarities to both parents for anyone to discover for themselves that this simply cannot be the whole truth of the matter.

 

[Alchemist]

Hi OObi,

Though like you I believe sexual relations outside of a stable heterosexual relationship to be against God's intentions, I must ask...

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...

... how you could possibly say God, the Almighty creator, 'unfortunately' created something. Either He created it, and it was "good" (Genesis 1:31), or He didn't! Homosexuality didn't just "unfortunately" appear cause God created something else.

Peace,
Nick

 

[ProAmerican]

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? Puhleeze.

Someone get the presses rolling!!!

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."

Jesus repeated in Matthew what God said in the book of Genesis: male with female ONLY.

The Bible also forbids fornication, or sex outside the bonds of marriage.

So God forbids two women or two men getting married, and he also forbids them having sex together, both, regardless of whether or not they are in "long-term, loving, committed relationships."

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...God has delivered many, many people from horrible sins before.

 

[Konkurrent]

"Because my interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one, my interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one."

 

[ebia]

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.

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."

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 repeated in Matthew what God said in the book of Genesis: male with female ONLY.

Neither Genesis nor Jesus' words in Matthew say 'only'. You have added that word.

The Bible also forbids fornication, or sex outside the bonds of marriage.

The bible certainly forbids fornication, but it doesn't define it, nor marriage.

So God forbids two women or two men getting married,

No He hasn't. The bible does not directly address the possibility either way.

and he also forbids them having sex together, both, regardless of whether or not they are in "long-term, loving, committed relationships."

A permanent, loving, committed, faithful, consentual relationship IS marriage.

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.

 

[Konkurrent]

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.

This made me ask a new question. I don't know the answer, but I'm curious.

It falls along the lines of "unanswered prayer". Now most people understand that this is a misnomer (all prayer is answered, just not all answers are "yes") but that raises an interesting dilemma.

If someone asks God to take away their homosexuality, and God does not, what does that mean? Does that mean God wants them to live a life that requires constant struggle against a sexual orientation that will destroy any "moral" relationship they attempt, thereby enforcing complete celibacy?

Or is it God saying "no" for the same reason that He says "no" to the kid who prays for a pet elephant?

 

[ebia]

Do does God say no because he never intended homosexuality to be seen as a bad thing, and intends them to engage in a same-sex marriage.