Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[MrPirate]

At the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't yet a sin, was it?

Sins have a start date and an expiration date?

There is no proof that David and Jonathon had a homosexual relationship.

And no proof they didn’t. There is as much evidence for a relationship between these two as for any relationship in the bible

 

[ChaliceThunder]

[/color][/font][/size]

Sorry - I do not read/comprehend each word of it literally.
"Proved my point again there, friend. I never said anything about not using eyes. Please go back and read again - slowly, carefully."

The first part of your sentence says "I do not read the Bible with the eyes," you later go on to specify which eyes, but I found the humor in the first part of your statement. This is really a dead issue and does not need further discussion.

Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"

The complete sentence talks about reading with the eyes OF A LITERALIST.

This is why I made the correct assumption that your own literal reading cripples you...it does so because it is painfully obvious that you were, even after 2 helping posts, unable to grasp the intention of the post.

Please do not read that as an insult. I only offer it as an example of the incredible problems that proceed from literalist readings of anything, let alone scripture.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"you don't have to be with ANYONE to be homosexual... you could be the last person on the planet and still be a homosexual"

If you were the last person on the planet, exactly who would you be attracted to that was of the same sex? Also, the verses we are quoting seem to focus on the act of homosexual sex, moreso than having a different sexual orientation. The fact that Adam and Eve went forth, became fruitful and multiplied, strongly suggests that they were not homosexual. There's just no way for you to prove your assertion that either Adam or Eve could be homosexual and I think this whole thing is a strawman constructed by you to take away from the issue being discussed here.

Remember Jesus also said that any man that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew5:27-28. Why would the same condemnation of lustful thoughts not apply to a man looking at another man with lust in his heart or a woman looking at another woman with lust in her heart?

Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time...

Michael Collins on Apollo 11... the record holder for the greatest distance from another living human in history... was STILL (presumeably) heterosexual, even when he was a quarter million miles away from the nearest woman.

A marriage-like relationship? What kind of relationship is that exactly? Sex outside of marriage is adultery, regardless of your sexual orientation.

well heres a real kicker... the Bible doesn't actually specify what a marriage IS... so I guess technically, any marriage like relationship qualifies... you know, loving, committed, mutually supporting sort of thing

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

if you believe that adam and eve were the only 2 humans on earth at the time, its impossible for them to be homosexual. Asexual is a possibility though, but how could adam know he was homosexual if he never saw another man?


I honestly believe a large portion of the arguments all involve one thing. That is, the problem with us identifying ourselves by our sexual preference. That's one reason why I don't like the term "Gay Christian", it implies to me that one's sexuality comes before or is equal with their faith. A follower of Christ is simply that, a follower of Christ, whether he be black white red green gay straight transexual circus clown or elephant man.

 

[David Brider]

if you believe that adam and eve were the only 2 humans on earth at the time, its impossible for them to be homosexual. Asexual is a possibility though, but how could adam know he was homosexual if he never saw another man?

Someone can be a homosexual without knowing it. In my experience, most homosexuals only realise that they're homosexual around their mid-teens, when puberty kicks in. So that's around fifteen years or so that they've been homosexual without knowing it.

I honestly believe a large portion of the arguments all involve one thing. That is, the problem with us identifying ourselves by our sexual preference. That's one reason why I don't like the term "Gay Christian", it implies to me that one's sexuality comes before or is equal with their faith. A follower of Christ is simply that, a follower of Christ, whether he be black white red green gay straight transexual circus clown or elephant man.

To a certain extent I agree with you, but OTOH there's such a degree of negativity towards gay people in some sections of the church that I think there's an element of security, solidarity, safety in numbers, if one can identify as a gay Christian with other gay Christians. Although the danger is that that can reinforce an "us and them" siege mentality.

David.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Someone can be a homosexual without knowing it. In my experience, most homosexuals only realise that they're homosexual around their mid-teens, when puberty kicks in. So that's around fifteen years or so that they've been homosexual without knowing it.

Yeah, technically one could still be homosexual, but there'd be no way to prove it, and the person in question would most definitely not understand it. Imagine if you'd never seen any other people in your entire life except for one woman, how would you know that your lack of attraction to her were not just your own asexuality and not homosexuality?

 

[Zecryphon]

Is there any other reason?



Yeah right…tell us another one.

An unfounded claim

The action is rape. Which has no more to do with gay sex than rape has to do with straight sex.



Unless you follow all the laws of Leviticus then yes you are cherry picking and choosing.






As noted male on male rape is no more the defining factor of a same sex relationship that male on female rape is the defining factor of an opposite sex relationship





Changing the goal posts again I see







Good luck with that

"Is there any other reason?"

Yes, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?





"Yeah right…tell us another one."

It's obvious you're gonna do nothing but have knee-jerk reactions when talking about this subject, so why should anyone bother to converse with you at all? It's nothing more than a waste of time.

 

[Zecryphon]

Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time...

Michael Collins on Apollo 11... the record holder for the greatest distance from another living human in history... was STILL (presumeably) heterosexual, even when he was a quarter million miles away from the nearest woman.well heres a real kicker... the Bible doesn't actually specify what a marriage IS... so I guess technically, any marriage like relationship qualifies... you know, loving, committed, mutually supporting sort of thing

"Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time..."

But how would you know? Since there is no other person for you to either be attracted to or not attracted to?

"Michael Collins on Apollo 11... the record holder for the greatest distance from another living human in history... was STILL (presumeably) heterosexual, even when he was a quarter million miles away from the nearest woman."

Michael Collins was presumably surrounded by other men on the Apollo 11 mission, wasn't he? As he was clearly not attracted to them, it is safe to conclude that he was not homosexual. This isn't about sexual orientation, it's about actions. Sin can be committed in thought and in action. Homosexual relations you can try and explain away, but you're just as guilty of lusting after another person outside of wedlock as heterosexual people are. The orientation does not define the sin. The action or thought life of the individual does. Sin is an issue relevant to a person, not to a group.

Quote:
A marriage-like relationship? What kind of relationship is that exactly? Sex outside of marriage is adultery, regardless of your sexual orientation.

"well heres a real kicker... the Bible doesn't actually specify what a marriage IS... "

You can figure it out by looking at what it is in the Bible when marriages are disccussed. It's a joining of man and woman as one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Look at all the examples of marriage in the Bible and the examples are numerous. Not once is there a joining of two people of the same gender.

"so I guess technically, any marriage like relationship qualifies... you know, loving, committed, mutually supporting sort of thing"

If marriage is not defined anywhere in the Bible, then you can not have a marriage-like relationship because you don't know what it is that you're trying to emulate.

 

[Zecryphon]

Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"

The complete sentence talks about reading with the eyes OF A LITERALIST.

This is why I made the correct assumption that your own literal reading cripples you...it does so because it is painfully obvious that you were, even after 2 helping posts, unable to grasp the intention of the post.

Please do not read that as an insult. I only offer it as an example of the incredible problems that proceed from literalist readings of anything, let alone scripture.

"Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"

The complete sentence talks about reading with the eyes OF A LITERALIST."

Oh this is so utterly ridiculous at this point. You just refuse to see the silliness in the first part of your sentence. I took your sentence apart and found a silly statement contained therein. Why don't you do the same and see if you agree with what I initially wrote? Since you're not a literalist you should have no problem looking at your sentence from a different point of view, right?


"This is why I made the correct assumption that your own literal reading cripples you...it does so because it is painfully obvious that you were, even after 2 helping posts, unable to grasp the intention of the post. "

I got the intention of the post. I am not crippled as you suggest and can take your sentence in a different way than you intended it, which means that you are acting like a literalist here, not me. Pot meet kettle.


"Please do not read that as an insult. I only offer it as an example of the incredible problems that proceed from literalist readings of anything, let alone scripture."

Read the Bible as it was written, if it was written as poetry, read it as such. If it was written as historical narrative, read it as historical narrative. That's a literal reading of the Bible and keeps everything in the proper persepctive. What is the deciding factor for you as to what to take literally and what to take figuratively, perhaps what the written material suggests? But to figure that out you have to take it word for word first, which is taking it literally. At least to start with, which is what I've been saying all along, read it literally and then go from there. It's a starting point, not necessarily an ending point as you seem to think.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I was just stating that even if someone were to be homosexual (adam or eve), they would not even understand it since there were presumably no other humans on the planet at the time. How would it be possible to have interest in the same sex if no others of the same sex existed? How would you know?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Michael Collins was presumably surrounded by other men on the Apollo 11 mission, wasn't he? As he was clearly not attracted to them, it is safe to conclude that he was not homosexual. This isn't about sexual orientation, it's about actions. Sin can be committed in thought and in action. Homosexual relations you can try and explain away, but you're just as guilty of lusting after another person outside of wedlock as heterosexual people are. The orientation does not define the sin. The action or thought life of the individual does. Sin is an issue relevant to a person, not to a group.

A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence... but either way, no... Collins stayed in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Lunar surface... so at times he had the entire moon between him and the nearest living human being.

Still doesn';t change what his sexuality was. Isolated as he was, he was still either homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[Zecryphon]

A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence... but either way, no... Collins stayed in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Lunar surface... so at times he had the entire moon between him and the nearest living human being.

Still doesn';t change what his sexuality was. Isolated as he was, he was still either homosexual or heterosexual.

"A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence..."

Was Collins married at the time of the mission? Did he ever get married later, if he wasn't at the time of the mission? That would be your evidence to the contrary about his alleged homosexuality.

"but either way, no... Collins stayed in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Lunar surface... so at times he had the entire moon between him and the nearest living human being.

Still doesn';t change what his sexuality was. Isolated as he was, he was still either homosexual or heterosexual."

He knew what he was before he went into orbit, because he had been surrounded by males and females prior to going and knew which sex he was attracted to. How does this help your claim that Adam and Eve could have been homosexual though? I see that you have not answered that question, although it has been posed to you by two different people now.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Was Collins married at the time of the mission? Did he ever get married later, if he wasn't at the time of the mission? That would be your evidence to the contrary about his alleged homosexuality.

I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates.

He may have been, he may not have been, but either way, you are making an assumption and promoting it as fact.

He knew what he was before he went into orbit, because he had been surrounded by males and females prior to going and knew which sex he was attracted to. How does this help your claim that Adam and Eve could have been homosexual though? I see that you have not answered that question, although it has been posed to you by two different people now.

*As nicely as possible*

If you are homosexual, you are omosexual. If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual. Its just the way you are, same as being dark skined, blue eyed, or red haired.

It doesn't matter if you KNOW what you are, you still ARE... for example, in the history of the world, most people didn't KNOW they had a pancreas, or what it was for, but they still had one.

So yes, Adam and/or Eve could have been homosexual, without ever knowing it.

Indeed, if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then its looking pretty good that one of them at least must have, at the very least, been a carrier of the genes that give one homosexual tendencies... otherwise where'd the gene come from?

 

[mont974x4]

There is no homosexual gene....unless you think there is a sin gene?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There is no homosexual gene....unless you think there is a sin gene?

there are certainly genes which seem to pre-dispose us to certain behaviours that some consider sinful... howevber I don't see any reason to regard homosexuality as sinful.

There is, however, significant evidence suggesting a genetic component to sexual orientation.

I can cite impartial empirical articles for my position, can you?

 

[mont974x4]

They have been posted by others in various threads on this subject.

Regardless, the Bible does say it is a sin, as heterosexual immorality is sin. The question is, bottomline, are we going to give into our flesh and sin or are we going to obey God. Are we going to deny our flesh and walk in the Spirit?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They have been posted by others in various threads on this subject.

Regardless, the Bible does say it is a sin, as heterosexual immorality is sin. The question is, bottomline, are we going to give into our flesh and sin or are we going to obey God. Are we going to deny our flesh and walk in the Spirit?

they've been posted in other threads? I've never seen any... link me to one?

Tell me where the Bible says homosexuality within a loving, commited relationship is a sin?

 

[mont974x4]

We have shown multiple times from Leciticus, Romans, and 1 Cor that it is a sin, no matter how we try to justify it. That is the bottomline.


The problem with the gene, and the "I was made this way", argument is that we are new creations in Christ. We are not bound to our sinful flesh. Remember, there's people who claim that they were made/born as pedophiles, thieves, psychopaths and on and on. Biblically, the excuse doesn't wash. Christ's blood does wash and the Holy Spirit empowers us to live godly lives.

 

[Zecryphon]

I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates.

He may have been, he may not have been, but either way, you are making an assumption and promoting it as fact.*As nicely as possible*

If you are homosexual, you are omosexual. If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual. Its just the way you are, same as being dark skined, blue eyed, or red haired.

It doesn't matter if you KNOW what you are, you still ARE... for example, in the history of the world, most people didn't KNOW they had a pancreas, or what it was for, but they still had one.

So yes, Adam and/or Eve could have been homosexual, without ever knowing it.

Indeed, if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then its looking pretty good that one of them at least must have, at the very least, been a carrier of the genes that give one homosexual tendencies... otherwise where'd the gene come from?

"I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates."

What's this? All of a sudden you don't care about a hypothesis you threw out there? Possibly that's because once you think it through or actually look for some evidence to back up your assertion, you realize that you have no evidence to back up your assertion? I'll consider Collins was attracted to his crewmates or homosexual when I see some evidence to support that. Right now all I have is an unsupported assertion that he was, and that does not constitute evidence. I'm also certain Collins wouldn't like you throwing his name out there as a possible homosexual, with no evidence, in an attempt to justify that homosexuality is not a sin. All you have done here is slander Mr. Collins.

"He may have been, he may not have been, but either way, you are making an assumption and promoting it as fact."

I'm not the one putting out the idea the Collins could have been attracted to his crewmates without any evidence to back it up. That's all you. All I have done is point you to evidence that would prove definitively if he was or was not gay and you're getting defensive. Seems to me you just want to try and mount a defense for homosexuality regardless of who you slander in the process.

Quote:
He knew what he was before he went into orbit, because he had been surrounded by males and females prior to going and knew which sex he was attracted to. How does this help your claim that Adam and Eve could have been homosexual though? I see that you have not answered that question, although it has been posed to you by two different people now.

"*As nicely as possible*

If you are homosexual, you are omosexual. If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual. Its just the way you are, same as being dark skined, blue eyed, or red haired."

So what? The orientation is not the sin. The action is and that's what's being addressed here.

"It doesn't matter if you KNOW what you are, you still ARE... for example, in the history of the world, most people didn't KNOW they had a pancreas, or what it was for, but they still had one."

So what? Having a pancreas does not predispose you to sinful actions, having a sin nature does. Everyone has one of those regardless of sexual orientation. So why is it that you want the homosexuals get a free pass when they act according to theirs?

"So yes, Adam and/or Eve could have been homosexual, without ever knowing it."

To be homosexual you have to be attracted to another person of the same sex. Who would Adam have been attracted to? There were no other males alive at the time. Your claim can not be supported.

"Indeed, if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then its looking pretty good that one of them at least must have, at the very least, been a carrier of the genes that give one homosexual tendencies... otherwise where'd the gene come from?"

You're basing your arguments upon a literal Adam and Eve as well, otherwise you would not be able to suggest that Adam could have been homosexual. He has to exist first, in order to possibly be a homosexual. If you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, you can not use your hypothesis as any kind of a defense. Now as to where the supposed "gay gene" came from. I suspect it is a mutation of good genetic code due to the fall of man that allowed sin and evil to enter into the world and corrupt that which was once good. Same place diseases came from.

I've told others to stop looking for this "gay gene" and here's why. If you find that there is indeed one, you will give ultra-conservative Christians a smoking gun on a sliver platter. They have been saying for years there is something wrong with homosexuals. If you give them a gene that proves it, you will prove them right. You really wanna do that? Do you wanna admit that the Bible thumpers were right all along? Your defense of homosexuality with a gene, will only lead to a bigger pair of questions. If it is a gene that predisposes a person to this behavior, can that behavior be corrected and should it be? Also, will people who are gay want it corrected? Do you really wanna open that can of worms?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We have shown multiple times from Leciticus, Romans, and 1 Cor that it is a sin, no matter how we try to justify it. That is the bottomline.

Leviticus cuts no ice, because we are under the New Covenant, rather than the old, right?

Romans and Corinthians are Paul's OPINION... not the word of God... but even if we agree, for a moment, that Paul's word = the inerrant divinity of God, you are, of course, aware that there are a myriad of contending translations for these verses to which you refer, and the context of them to boot, would rather seem to be talking about promiscuous homosexuality, homosexuality as a form of pagan worship, or unnatural homosexuality (i.e. engaging in homosexual sex when you are not naturally inclined to do so)

So, unless ya got any other verses, homosexuality within a loving commited relationship appears not to be a sin, re the Bible.

The problem with the gene, and the "I was made this way", argument is that we are new creations in Christ. We are not bound to our sinful flesh. Remember, there's people who claim that they were made/born as pedophiles, thieves, psychopaths and on and on. Biblically, the excuse doesn't wash. Christ's blood does wash and the Holy Spirit empowers us to live godly lives.

Yeah... I'm going to go ahead and disagree there... I mean, if your body is made in such a way that you are compelled to behave in a certain fashion, are you really responsible for it?

If you can provide convincing evidence that there is a genuine genetic cause for the paedophilia trait, then I would be quite prepared to discuss interventions other than prison for them.