Homosexuality

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Either you ignored the rest of my posts in this thread or you never read them. Judgement I leave to God, for He is the only one that is all knowing. I never said those people are going to hell or that they are not Christians. But I definately do not believe that this is "genetic".

Based on your interpretation of what the Bible says, you made a blanket statement that millions of people don't have enough faith.

By that same measure all those who pray for a cure for cancer, for themselves or for their loved ones lack faith, according to you the only reason anybody who suffers from a devastatingly painful illness or injury and prays to God yet is not healed "lacks faith, or doesn't want to be healed".

You know squat about those people and are not in the position to make that kind of judgement.

 

[Biff]

holo,

I'm not suggesting Biff is judgmental, only mistaken

.

Mistaken about what? What God says verses what you believe???
Not lately!!!

Biff

(Jingle, Jingle! Hark! Are those the keys to the kingdom I hear?)

 

[holo]

holo,

.

Mistaken about what? What God says verses what you believe???
Not lately!!!

Biff

(Jingle, Jingle! Hark! Are those the keys to the kingdom I hear?)

About your son being lost because he's a "practicing homosexual" or whatever you call it. If in fact that was what you were suggesting.

If I understood you right, he's not saved because he doesn't believe God can/will change him. That's why I asked you to share a weakness of your own, to make a point.

 

[Mling]

If I understood you right, he's not saved because he doesn't believe God can/will change him

I wonder who taught this boy that being Christian meant he had to stop being gay. I wonder why he felt that he had to leave God (or that God had already left him) because he couldn't stop being gay.

 

[GrimWolf]

By that same measure all those who pray for a cure for cancer, for themselves or for their loved ones lack faith, according to you the only reason anybody who suffers from a devastatingly painful illness or injury and prays to God yet is not healed "lacks faith, or doesn't want to be healed".

Last time I checked cancer was not a sin. By the way, my mother died of cancer when I was 10 years old, but I know that where she is now is a lot better than here on earth and yes, it hurt when she died, but it would be selfish of me to be mad at God for taking her to a better place.

Based on your interpretation of what the Bible says, you made a blanket statement that millions of people don't have enough faith.

Well, yes. There are loads of people who lack faith, hope or/and love. You see it all around you. People who do not have hope for the future, people who do not know what it is like to have a loving family or have difficulty showing love, people who do not believe that Christ died for their sins on the cross, people without faith in God.

God will decide when it is time for people to leave this world and so people die of cancer, not because they lack faith, but because it was their time. Now , God does not make you gay, that is something you decide. It is a sin that you give in to. So now I will say this again because it seems that you don't understand this part: I do not judge people, or judge whether they will go to hell. God does not want you to sin, so He will help you to overcome temptations, if you have faith in Him.

 

[intricatic]

I wonder who taught this boy that being Christian meant he had to stop being gay. I wonder why he felt that he had to leave God (or that God had already left him) because he couldn't stop being gay.

That's making a lot of assumptions, isn't it?

 

[djbcrawford]

Got to the 4th page and thought I don't have time to read all these.

So I'll give my thoughts, with appologies to any questions that have been asked or answered.

First I hate labels. We have 2 sexes, male and female, not 4 or 5. Hetrosexual, homosexual, etc are just labels invented by man. Homosexual refers to an act, not a person.

What this discussion is really about is whether the act is right or wrong.

The reasons for it being wrong would appear to be:

1. The bible says so. Not once or twice in some obscure passge, but consistantly throughout. Sex is always talked about in a positive way when it is between a married man and woman. While Jesus didn't specifically mention homosexual acts, the only time he mentioned sex was between a man and a woman in marriage.

2. Biology. Male + Female = sexual reproduction

Both these reasons appear pretty strong.

The reasons for it being right appear to be:

1. I can't help it.

2. God made me this way/it's genetic.

3. It feels so good, it can't be wrong.

4. It doesn't hurt anybody.

(If their are others I have missed, I will happily debate them)

The problem with these arguements is that between them all, you could justify just about any sinful act from rape/murder to cheating on your taxes. In fact if you find yourself using them to justify anything, it's a pretty good guess that what you're doing or want to do, is wrong.

From the above, the "It's wrong's" appear to have the stronger arguement. This should not be something to gloat over or use to finger point though. Everyone has sinned and needs love, acceptance and forgiveness.

As for how to treat people caught up in this, I think Jesus said it best (as he always does) when he said to the people who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery (note she is referred to as a woman, not an adultress) - let him who is without sin cast the first stone - while to the woman he said - go and sin no more.

 

[Colabomb]

Got to the 4th page and thought I don't have time to read all these.

So I'll give my thoughts, with appologies to any questions that have been asked or answered.

First I hate labels. We have 2 sexes, male and female, not 4 or 5. Hetrosexual, homosexual, etc are just labels invented by man. Homosexual refers to an act, not a person.

What this discussion is really about is whether the act is right or wrong.

The reasons for it being wrong would appear to be:

1. The bible says so. Not once or twice in some obscure passge, but consistantly throughout. Sex is always talked about in a positive way when it is between a married man and woman. While Jesus didn't specifically mention homosexual acts, the only time he mentioned sex was between a man and a woman in marriage.

2. Biology. Male + Female = sexual reproduction

Both these reasons appear pretty strong.

The reasons for it being right appear to be:

1. I can't help it.

2. God made me this way/it's genetic.

3. It feels so good, it can't be wrong.

4. It doesn't hurt anybody.

(If their are others I have missed, I will happily debate them)

The problem with these arguements is that between them all, you could justify just about any sinful act from rape/murder to cheating on your taxes. In fact if you find yourself using them to justify anything, it's a pretty good guess that what you're doing or want to do, is wrong.

From the above, the "It's wrong's" appear to have the stronger arguement. This should not be something to gloat over or use to finger point though. Everyone has sinned and needs love, acceptance and forgiveness.

As for how to treat people caught up in this, I think Jesus said it best (as he always does) when he said to the people who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery (note she is referred to as a woman, not an adultress) - let him who is without sin cast the first stone - while to the woman he said - go and sin no more.

I do believe that homosexual activity is sinful. However you are correct in pointing out that Homosexuals are indeed people deserving of the love and respect we give to everyone else.

 

[holo]

The problem with these arguements is that between them all, you could justify just about any sinful act from rape/murder to cheating on your taxes. In fact if you find yourself using them to justify anything, it's a pretty good guess that what you're doing or want to do, is wrong.

The "it doesn't hurt anyone" argument doesn't work for rape, theft or murder.

 

[Colabomb]

The "it doesn't hurt anyone" argument doesn't work for rape, theft or murder.

Holo is right, that arguement could not be used.

But the assumption that sin is based on whether or not it hurts someone is faulty itself.


I believe personally, that the strongest argument, and the only arguement that is valid, is that God decreed things a certain way, regardless of how they seem to us.

 

[Mling]

That's making a lot of assumptions, isn't it?

Well, he has stated that his son used to proclaim Christ, but doesn't anymore because he is gay.

Anyway...I was going to delete this, but not if it's been responded to. If a mod wants to delete it, be my guest.

 

[holo]

Holo is right, that arguement could not be used.

But the assumption that sin is based on whether or not it hurts someone is faulty itself.


I believe personally, that the strongest argument, and the only arguement that is valid, is that God decreed things a certain way, regardless of how they seem to us.

...and that's where you and I would differ, I guess. My view of sin is something like "whatever isn't beneficial", kind of along the lines of Paul's statement that "everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial". I do realize that others view God, and read the bible, differently.

 

[intricatic]

...and that's where you and I would differ, I guess. My view of sin is something like "whatever isn't beneficial", kind of along the lines of Paul's statement that "everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial". I do realize that others view God, and read the bible, differently.

Would greed, then, be beneficial?

 

[IisJustMe]

kind of along the lines of Paul's statement that "everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial".

This (1 Corinthians 6:12) isn't the only time Paul engages in this chastisement. Compare 1 Corinthians 10:23, which likely echoes the lost first letter to Corinth Paul refers to earlier in this epistle, and Galatians 5:23. But the Corinthians used them to make a made a pretext for excusing the eating of meats offered to idols, and so of what was generally connected with idolatry in Acts 15:29, also made to excuse fornication. Paul's remark had referred only to things indifferent, but they wished to treat fornication as such, on the ground that the existence of bodily appetites proved the lawfulness of their gratification. He goes on to state that while all things of indifference are lawful, they will not hold power over him. The Greek words are from the same root,so as to form a play on words: All things are in my power, but I will not be brought under the power of any of them (the "all things"). He who commits fornication steps aside from his own legitimate power or liberty, and is brought under the power of a harlot (1 Corinthians 6:15; and compare 1 Corinthians 7:4). The power ought to be in the hands of the believer, not in the things which he uses. Otherwise, his liberty is forfeited and he ceases to be his own master as alluded to in John 8:34-36, Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16 and 2 Peter 2:19. Unlawful things will ruin thousands. Lawful things unlawfully used will ruin ten thousands.

I do realize that others view God, and read the bible, differently.

Perhaps, but it seems your entire statement links sin to that which affects others. Yet if a hermit who spends his whole life on a desert island does not receive Christ as Savior, and does not exhibit the law written on his heart (as Paul speaks of in the unevangelized in Romans 2:16, 17) he is still condemned, despite never having interaction with another, and never sinning against anyone but himself and God. That would seem to show your view (providing I've understood it correctly) to be incorrect.

 

[Mling]

Would greed, then, be beneficial?

Think about Donald Trump. Now imagine that his money was being spent to give low-level workers decent wages.

Imagine the world as it existed when people lived in communal tribes and nomadic bands. They were able to survive--in the tundra, in the desert--for thousands of years.

This society we have today, where people can just starve to death on the streets, only started coming about when others started acquiring more than they needed to survive. The greedy may see greed as beneficial, but their neighbors, dying of dysentery, know better.

 

[holo]

Would greed, then, be beneficial?

I can't imagine a situation where greed is beneficial for anything but selfish purposes. So, no.

 

[Mling]

Perhaps, but it seems your entire statement links sin to that which affects others. Yet if a hermit who spends his whole life on a desert island does not receive Christ as Savior, and does not exhibit the law written on his heart (as Paul speaks of in the unevangelized in Romans 2:16, 17) he is still condemned, despite never having interaction with another, and never sinning against anyone but himself and God. That would seem to show your view (providing I've understood it correctly) to be incorrect.

Bring me to the chamber of hell dedicated to hermits. Show me a hermit, and, when he dies, lead me through hell and introduce me to him there.

 

[holo]

Perhaps, but it seems your entire statement links sin to that which affects others. Yet if a hermit who spends his whole life on a desert island does not receive Christ as Savior, and does not exhibit the law written on his heart (as Paul speaks of in the unevangelized in Romans 2:16, 17) he is still condemned, despite never having interaction with another, and never sinning against anyone but himself and God. That would seem to show your view (providing I've understood it correctly) to be incorrect.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I think the entire concept of sin would be meanigless if you're alone in the universe. I believe God more than anything wants us to live, to prosper, to be healthy and free and happy. In fact, God cares so much about our well-being that He himself chose to DIE for us. I view sin in that perspective. Sin would be anything which is against God's will, basically.

Since I don't believe homosexuality is harmful in and of itself (though I can't claim it's "natural" either), I fail to see how it's sinful/morally wrong. Personally I need some sort of reason apart from "God says so", esp. since
a) God commanded a lot of things in the OT which seem redundant and even weird to us, now, and
b) I don't believe the bible and the word of God is one and the same.

I try to place myself in the homosexual's shoes; my heterosexuality is wrong and unnatural and I should never act upon it in any way, and if I do, I'm guilty of hell.

I just can't reconcile that with the God who saved me.

 

[Mling]

(though I can't claim it's "natural" either)

why do you not consider it "natural?" Animals show homosexual behavior quite often. Doesn't say anything about morality, but you can hardly argue that animals act"unnaturally."

 

[Colabomb]

I think the entire concept of sin would be meanigless if you're alone in the universe. I believe God more than anything wants us to live, to prosper, to be healthy and free and happy. In fact, God cares so much about our well-being that He himself chose to DIE for us. I view sin in that perspective. Sin would be anything which is against God's will, basically.

Since I don't believe homosexuality is harmful in and of itself (though I can't claim it's "natural" either), I fail to see how it's sinful/morally wrong. Personally I need some sort of reason apart from "God says so", esp. since
a) God commanded a lot of things in the OT which seem redundant and even weird to us, now, and
b) I don't believe the bible and the word of God is one and the same.

I try to place myself in the homosexual's shoes; my heterosexuality is wrong and unnatural and I should never act upon it in any way, and if I do, I'm guilty of hell.

I just can't reconcile that with the God who saved me.

If a hermit disobeys God, he sins.

God says do not worship false Idols. That is a sin against God. Not against other men.