Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[Ohioprof]

"People do take me seriously. It's clear that you take me seriously, or you would not bother to respond to my posts."

I am starting to not take you seriously, because of the lack of proof you have provided for your assertions.

"If you refrain from calling our relationships "sin," then great. We can have a positive acquaintanceship. But calling our love "sin" is maligning us, and it is slander against gay people. And I for one will challenge you and others when you slander us."

You're confusing God's judgment with our judgment. You're saying that we are judging you and maligning you when we call your relationships sin. We are telilng you what God has said about your relationships. If humans rendered their own judgment on this matter, it would probably be something more to your liking because it would sound something like "hey, if it feels good, do it." But that's not what scripture teaches and that's not God's attitude about this matter and that's what we as Christians must proclaim, God's truth, not man's.

"I do not rely on Bible verses as any authority, and so no, I will not cite Bible verses."

I did not ask you to cite Bible verses in my last post, I asked you to interpret some. You didn't. Why not? There can't be any growth or learning on either side if we don't understand how we come to our conclusions about what God has to say on this matter.

"And fyi, I am not a "sir." I am a woman."

My apologies to you ma'am.

It's obvious that you are not interested in "growth in learning." That's clear from the tone of your previous posts. You just want to tell gay people that we are living "lifestyles of sin." When you stop saying this, and when you start listening to gay people rather than lecturing at us, then we can begin learning together. But not while you harbor negative attitudes toward gay people.

Now I really must go pick up my little one.

 

[Ohioprof]

"Please stop beating up gay people with your Bible."

I can hardly beat anybody with anything as this is an internet forum and physical contact is not an issue. I find it very interesting that you want to use examples from the Bible, such as Jesus telling us to love our neighbor as ourself, to rebuke Christians with whom you disagree, but have made it clear that the Bible is not any type of authority for you. So how does that work? Do you get to use it when you it suits your fancy and disregard it when it doesn't suit your fancy? That's certainly not consistent behavior.

Jesus often rebuked people in the Bible for their actions. He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers and publicly rebuked the moneychangers in the temple. He gave law to the proud and grace to the humble. He did not come to earth to give us all a great big hug and tell us all that we were doing good in His father's eyes. He came to reconcile us to God with His sacrifice on the cross, to pay the penalty we ALL have earned through our sins against God. Sexual sin is a sin against God too. Don't think just because you're gay, you get a free pass in this area. You don't, we have all sinned and earned God's wrath, which is why we need Jesus as our savior.

"And I do not care what you "expect." Be more respectful toward gay people, please."

You make it clear that you do not care about my expectations yet tell me to be more respectful towards gay people? Don't you find that attitude just a tad bit hypocritical? You don't have to show me or my thoughts any respect ,but I have to respect yours? Please. Respect is earned not given freely or given because someone tells you to do so. If you want respect, you have to give it. I have given it to you thus far, I expect the same in return. But given your previous statement, I probably shouldn't hold my breath, huh?


How would I give more respect to gay people in your estimation? Should I disregard the Bible in the same manner that you do? Should I tell you that your sexual relationships are a-okay, because that would make you feel better about yourself? Should I not judge those in the body of Christ, simply because you have a problem with that behavior? I am servant of Christ, God and the Holy Spirit, I proclaim the truth as revealed by them, not man's truth. If that truth is so offensive to you, you probably shouldn't be in a Christian forum. People tend to quote the Bible frequently here.

You don't need to judge gay people's sexual relationships at all. You can just stop judging gay people and let us be. You don't go around lecturing divorced people about their divorces, do you? Why presume to lecture gay people about our lives?

Btw, I apologize to you for being overly angry at you earlier. I should have been more respectful toward you. Please accept my apology for over-reacting. I get tired of hearing the same things over and over again from people who insist on telling us that our relationships are "sin." And today I over-reacted.

 

[Zecryphon]

It's obvious that you are not interested in "growth in learning." That's clear from the tone of your previous posts. You just want to tell gay people that we are living "lifestyles of sin." When you stop saying this, and when you start listening to gay people rather than lecturing at us, then we can begin learning together. But not while you harbor negative attitudes toward gay people.

Now I really must go pick up my little one.

"It's obvious that you are not interested in "growth in learning." That's clear from the tone of your previous posts."

My tone? Which is what exactly? I'm still waiting for your exegesis of the verses I've provided from the Bible that declare homosexuality to be a sin. Since you have not provided said exegesis of those scriptures, there really can't be any learning as I have no idea how you interpret those.

"You just want to tell gay people that we are living "lifestyles of sin." When you stop saying this, and when you start listening to gay people rather than lecturing at us, then we can begin learning together."

Actually we can't, because you're not giving us anything to digest, other than more false accusations about me and what I've said. None of which are substantiated with any proof. You have this habit of going after the poster instead of dealing with what is said in the post.

"But not while you harbor negative attitudes toward gay people."

Do you have anything else to offer in the way of conversation or are you just going to keep repeating this tired mantra of "gay persecution"?

 

[Zecryphon]

You don't need to judge gay people's sexual relationships at all. You can just stop judging gay people and let us be. You don't go around lecturing divorced people about their divorces, do you? Why presume to lecture gay people about our lives?

Btw, I apologize to you for being overly angry at you earlier. I should have been more respectful toward you. Please accept my apology for over-reacting. I get tired of hearing the same things over and over again from people who insist on telling us that our relationships are "sin." And today I over-reacted.

"You don't need to judge gay people's sexual relationships at all. You can just stop judging gay people and let us be."

Again I have not passed judgment upon you. I have reiterated God's judgment of homosexuality to you.

"You don't go around lecturing divorced people about their divorces, do you? Why presume to lecture gay people about our lives?"

I am not lecturing anyone. I have asked for your interpretation of some Bible verses that directly relate to this issue, there is no lecture by me about you.

"Btw, I apologize to you for being overly angry at you earlier. I should have been more respectful toward you. Please accept my apology for over-reacting. I get tired of hearing the same things over and over again from people who insist on telling us that our relationships are "sin." And today I over-reacted."

I accept your apology.

 

[JayJay77]

from Ohioprof:
I am a Christian. But I do not regard the Bible as the word of God.

(Man, I had to write this in the other thread as well.) Then, why would David write in Psalm 119:128, "I consider all Your precepts right, I hate every wrong path"? And why would he say in Psalm 119:138, "The statutes You have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy"? The whole context of that chapter is about God's Word.

To say you're a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible as the Word of God is contradictory, isn't it?

To be a child of God is to love His Word. To be a Christ-follower (Christian), is to listen to and obey Christ's Words. (Matthew 7:24-27- "Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders")

We're not being disrespectful. We're just trying to illuminate God's Word to those who think homosexuality is right.

 

[David Brider]

To say you're a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible as the Word of God is contradictory, isn't it?

Well, that's another thread entirely, but FWIW, I've yet to find anywhere in the Bible that uses the phrase "the Word of God" (or "the Word of the Lord") to clearly and unambiguously refer to Scripture. So no, it's not contradictory at all.

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

(Man, I had to write this in the other thread as well.) Then, why would David write in Psalm 119:128, "I consider all Your precepts right, I hate every wrong path"? And why would he say in Psalm 119:138, "The statutes You have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy"? The whole context of that chapter is about God's Word.

To say you're a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible as the Word of God is contradictory, isn't it?

To be a child of God is to love His Word. To be a Christ-follower (Christian), is to listen to and obey Christ's Words. (Matthew 7:24-27- "Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders")

We're not being disrespectful. We're just trying to illuminate God's Word to those who think homosexuality is right.

Nope. I'm a Christian and don't believe the Bible is the inerrent word of God

 

[HaloHope]

ANother Christian here who isnt a Biblical literalist. Don't get me wrong theres plenty of important stuff in the Bible, but reading it literally without prior analysis when its such an ancient text seems a bit silly.

 

[Zecryphon]

ANother Christian here who isnt a Biblical literalist. Don't get me wrong theres plenty of important stuff in the Bible, but reading it literally without prior analysis when its such an ancient text seems a bit silly.

You have to read something literally before you can look for a symbolic or deeper meaning. There is just no other way to read any book, without reading what it says literally first. The definition I've found for "literal" means exact, word for word. How else would you read something if not exactly as written before looking for a deeper meaning?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

You have to read something literally before you can look for a symbolic or deeper meaning.

Who told you that?

(I am also a Christian who does not read the bible literally.)

 

[Zecryphon]

Who told you that?

(I am also a Christian who does not read the bible literally.)

"Who told you that?"

That's basic common sense. You have to read something word for word first before you can try and figure out what it means. How do you read a book, any book? You read what is written on the page and then go from there.

"(I am also a Christian who does not read the bible literally.)"

You may not assign a literal interpretation to what you've read, but you have to read what is written on the page, word for word, before you can interpret anything. Otherwise, there is no basis upon which to build an understanding of what you've just read. It's just letters on a page with no meaning whatsoever.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

"Who told you that?"

That's basic common sense. You have to read something word for word first before you can try and figure out what it means. How do you read a book, any book? You read what is written on the page and then go from there.

"(I am also a Christian who does not read the bible literally.)"

You may not assign a literal interpretation to what you've read, but you have to read what is written on the page, word for word, before you can interpret anything. Otherwise, there is no basis upon which to build an understanding of what you've just read. It's just letters on a page with no meaning whatsoever.

I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist.

 

[JayJay77]

literalism:n: fidelity to observable fact: realism (literalist, literalistic)

Sad. Why would God NOT want you to read His law, precepts, statutes, decrees, commands and words literally? (Are those words found in the Bible?)

The compilation of all these laws and decrees we call the Bible isn't a grouping of mere suggestions; they're commands. We learn from them lessons appropriate in each genre: history, poetry, symbolic literature, letters, etc.

 

[davedjy]

ANother Christian here who isnt a Biblical literalist. Don't get me wrong theres plenty of important stuff in the Bible, but reading it literally without prior analysis when its such an ancient text seems a bit silly.

True...even Bible literalists disregard certain verses as "historical context" such as the quoted verses below.

You certainly can find some rationale to justify slavery:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

What about selling your daughter as a sex slave?


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

 

[Zecryphon]

I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist.

"I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist."

You don't read it with your eyes? How do you do it then? Also, what is the "agenda" of a literalist? Why is it that people who take it symbolically don't have an agenda? Why this need to try and villify people who take it as it is written?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

"I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist."

You don't read it with your eyes? How do you do it then? Also, what is the "agenda" of a literalist? Why is it that people who take it symbolically don't have an agenda? Why this need to try and villify people who take it as it is written?

Sentence 1 - your literalism cripples you, obviously.

I did not villify anyone.

 

[JayJay77]

There are three basic kinds of religious authority: 1) human reason 2) the Church, and 3) God's Word. As this has been proved over and over, human reasoning cannot be trusted. The church is second best, but power corrupts, sometimes. The only thing left is God's Word, which He used fallible man to write an infallible message.

 

[MrPirate]

literalism:n: fidelity to observable fact: realism (literalist, literalistic)

Sad. Why would God NOT want you to read His law, precepts, statutes, decrees, commands and words literally? (Are those words found in the Bible?)

The compilation of all these laws and decrees we call the Bible isn't a grouping of mere suggestions; they're commands. We learn from them lessons appropriate in each genre: history, poetry, symbolic literature, letters, etc.

I find it strange that the very people who want the bible read literally are the first ones to reject the literal reading of the passages they say concern homoseuxuality

 

[David Brider]

There are three basic kinds of religious authority: 1) human reason 2) the Church, and 3) God's Word. As this has been proved over and over, human reasoning cannot be trusted. The church is second best, but power corrupts, sometimes. The only thing left is God's Word, which He used fallible man to write an infallible message.

Surely, there's only one kind of "religious" authority, and that's God himself? Anything else is entirely fallible and prone to error.

And as I pointed out earlier, there's no sound Scriptural case for the Scripture = God's Word equation.

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

Sentence 1 - your literalism cripples you, obviously.

I did not villify anyone.

"Sentence 1 - your literalism cripples you, obviously."

Nice tone of condescension there. It is totally not needed in a civil conversation, such as the one I'm trying to have with you. I mean, come on, don't you see the silliness in the first part of your own statement? "I do not read it with the eyes..." Apparently not. You suggested that people who take the Bible literally do so with their eyes and heart focused on an agenda. Now what agenda would that be? Care to elaborate?

"I did not villify anyone."

Oh but you did. See, when you bring a word like agenda into a conversation, a word that very often has a negative connotation to it, you are saying that people have a motive in mind prior to coming to the word of God. You are saying that we have a preconceived understanding and that this preconceived understanding will hamper us in some way. A preconceived understanding will hamper everybody, that's why it is best to read what is plainly written, word for word, and then proceed from there.

The way you phrased your statement makes it sound like those who take the Bible as it is written, have a different purpose than you do, when we all have the same purpose in mind, to come to God's word to increase our understanding of who God is revealing himself to be and to increase our understanding of how He wants us to live so we can best glorify Him.