Homosexuality

[Gusoceros]

Well, guess what...that is of little concern because we are all different. Do you see a problem with our race to die out? the planet is over populated, and we make up a very small/minority portion of the population.

That's like saying "we can't have all you people be blind, then we won't have doctors, firemen and lawyers for our future~!!!!!"

You miss the context. I am not promoting that we are all one way or another- the context is in showing HOW the 2 types of relationships are DIFFERENT- same sex couples, and married couples.

G

 

[davedjy]

You miss the context. I am not promoting that we are all one way or another- the context is in showing HOW the 2 types of relationships are DIFFERENT- same sex couples, and married couples.

G

We already know how they are different. We know how our bodies are designed, that cannot be ignored, but what is your point w/that?

 

[Gusoceros]

We already know how they are different. We know how our bodies are designed, that cannot be ignored, but what is your point w/that?

Im glad we agree that the 2 couples are fundamentally different. Now we can dispense with the arguments of "Why cant we have the same benefits and recognition- we are the same thing as a married couple" that are being promoted with regard to same sex couples.

G

 

[davedjy]

Im glad we agree that the 2 couples are fundamentally different. Now we can dispense with the arguments of "Why cant we have the same benefits and recognition- we are the same thing as a married couple" that are being promoted with regard to same sex couples.

G

Design and "fundamentally different" are two totally different points. 2 people that love each other, regardless of a shallow point of their sex, is what really matters. So yes, I do agree that people should be able to marry whoever they want. Show me a verse in the Bible where Paul or any of the other Apostles address "sexual orientation".

 

[Gusoceros]

Design and "fundamentally different" are two totally different points. 2 people that love each other, regardless of a shallow point of their sex, is what really matters. So yes, I do agree that people should be able to marry whoever they want. Show me a verse in the Bible where Paul or any of the other Apostles address "sexual orientation".

No- the 2 points are connected- it is through a number of differences in design- that they are fundamentally different. I have gone to great lengths already to explain this- let me know if you need a link to this explanation. It is important to the point- because marriage is not determined solely by who you love- there are more parameters to it, and they reflect the original design of marriage.

As far as Bible Verses- we have already addressed a number of verses in the old and new testaments that speak directly against the homosexual act. It is not necessary to go into it again.

Lastly- we are not judged by our orientation- rather by what we do with our temptations. It is by our sinful acts that we are judged, not our temptations.

G

 

[davedjy]

No- the 2 points are connected- it is through a number of differences in design- that they are fundamentally different. I have gone to great lengths already to explain this- let me know if you need a link to this explanation. It is important to the point- because marriage is not determined solely by who you love- there are more parameters to it, and they reflect the original design of marriage.

As far as Bible Verses- we have already addressed a number of verses in the old and new testaments that speak directly against the homosexual act. It is not necessary to go into it again.

Lastly- we are not judged by our orientation- rather by what we do with our temptations. It is by our sinful acts that we are judged, not our temptations.

G

Yes, and I have STATED what the interpretations mean, there are extremely convincing arguments on the other side of the fence, hence the 28 SPLIT off denominations.

 

[MercuryAndy]

Well if thats all it takes, I'm an Apostle too. Therefore, my word is Holy Scripture. And if you don't believe me, your sining.

she has you there dude.

 

[PinkTulip]

she has you there dude.

Paul saw the risen Christ, and if I remember correctly you can't add to Scripture.

 

[angelmom01]

Ah- so now we are getting somewhere- you dont want what is marriage- you want legal, social, and spiritual recognition. You want something from others because of your relationship- right?

Legal: you can arrange all of this now through an attorney, without changing the definition of marriage for everyone.

Social: Tell your friends you are in a lifelong commitment.

Spiritual: God calls the homosexual act a sin.

G

So you encourage what you call a sin so long as it doesn't entail calling it marriage?

 

[chris777]

Well if thats all it takes, I'm an Apostle too. Therefore, my word is Holy Scripture. And if you don't believe me, your sining.

Apparently you have not read the scripture, or my post regarding this issue.
Paul was both struck blind by God, then he MET Peter who knew Christ pretty well, and Peter never Denied Paul was an apostle

as well as
John 5:
[31] If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
[32] There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[33] Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
[34] But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
[35] He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[36] But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
[38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[angelmom01]

It is the same with heterocouples- we are not judged by desiring another, rather by what we do with it. The act of sin, is ultimately a choice.

Ok, you are the second person to say this on this thread.

How is that true, in light of what Christ called adultery? You need only lust after someone and you are guilty of adultery.

Moses said: thou shall not COMMIT adultery.

Christ said: DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!

So calling the “act” of homosexuality “the sin” but telling a homosexual to NOT ACT on it so it WON’T be sin is like telling a heterosexual that they can lust after others all they want so long as they don’t HAVE SEX (or “act” on it) with the object of their affection (outside of marriage).

Yet the heterosexual has the opportunity to get married and ACT out those lusts with his/her spouse while the heterosexual is left to be consumed in their own unmet desires, etc.

If you are going to call it a SIN then call it a SIN but go so far as to acknowledge that even the DESIRE/LUST is A SIN (and not just the ACT) and then acknowledge that even HETEROSEXUAL desires and lusts are SINS as well.

It seems that heterosexuals want to stick to the “act” of homosexuality so that they can absolve themselves from their own sexual sins that they don't "act" on, even though they HAVE THEM… ???

How convenient and how much more convenient that they also have an avenue (marriage) in which to “act” on those lusts/desires/etc so they don't have to call them a "sin".

Let me ask you this.... WHAT IF God had created many men and women besides Adam and Eve AND THEN God separated out Adam and gave him a helpmeet (Eve) and joined THEM together and blesses THEM, making THEM one flesh, to signify the relationship between Christ and the church.

Would you see marraige and this relationship any differently? As it relates to ALL men?

angelmom

 

[Nadiine]

Apparently you have not read the scripture, or my post regarding this issue.
Paul was both struck blind by God, then he MET Peter who knew Christ pretty well, and Peter never Denied Paul was an apostle

as well as
John 5:
[31] If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
[32] There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[33] Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
[34] But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
[35] He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[36] But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
[38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Absolutely Chris777 - Peter calls Paul His brother who wrote epistles in 1 Peter 3:15-16.
In Acts, Paul was brought to the 12 disciples (who at first were afraid to meet him due to his reputation as a persecutor of the faith) - Mark was with Paul too (Luke writes of them in Acts). Mark wrote one of the gospels.

Paul was fully accepted as an apostle of Christ by the NT writers & disciples.

 

[angelmom01]

God is a master designer. The "Things seen" weren't only crafted to serve as empty indicators of a greater meaning, although ultimately they take most of their meaning through that. Some of the ritual in the OT was given to be fulfilled in specific aspects of Christ's ministry or elsewhere, and are no longer applicable because they've come to completion, but other things are universally applicable in terms of morality and ethics. Those things Christ conforms us to by circumstance, through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

No, I don’t believe they are empty indicators or that they are no longer applicable in any way, hence the words of Paul when he revealed what the MYSTERY was behind the marriage relationship. He didn’t tel us that it was no longer necessary or important, etc. he said:


Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

But the wife was no longer subject to her husband in the same way; the wives we no longer required to wear head coverings, etc.

And it is. But it was also the design of creation that was a mode of manifestation towards a deal of other types. The idea that the two shall be one flesh in it's most simple and non-theologically explicated form was a model of marriage for man and woman that we still revere today (according to Christ's teachings, as well).

Yes, I know, yet Paul discouraged it.

We shouldn't revere anything for simple form, though. In other words, it's manifest to us because God wanted Adam to be happy, and He also wanted Eve to be happy, and His design was specific in regards to mutually complimentary roles. After the fall, this fact may be twisted, but the enemy cannot create new designs or totally erase the design that already exists.

How is anyone trying to “erase” it?

That doesn't mean, as the common argument might suggest, that man and women cannot possibly be happy apart from eachother in that co-relationship (alone, for instance, or celibate). It does mean that sexuality and marriage compliment one another 100% according to the natural design. The point of marriage is to realize why man and woman are mutually complimentary to one another and to fulfill that just as Christ fulfilled the type in regards to the Church. Don't misunderstand me, though. One can't do that without the Spirit.

Do what? Realize how Christ and the church fulfills the type of the marriage relationship? Do you think that you have to be heterosexual or even married to be able to see that?

All of the Laws were spiritually applicable even before Christ.

Were they spiritually understood?

Remember Hebrews 12. Because an antitype is fulfilled does not imply that we should abandon morality simply to avoid the appearance of conforming to the outward adornment of the Law. The logical implications of that idea would be self-contradictory to a large degree. Also as in Hebrews, the typification of the Law is pronounced in Jeremiah extremely well.

I don’t think we should abandon morality.

What determines morality? The Law of Moses? Or Christ’s commandments?

Do you understand the implications raised in this passage to the topic we're discussing?

Not sure. Wasn’t Israel cast off? Didn’t Christ fulfill the law and didn’t God make a NEW COVENANT and didn't Christ give new commandments?

I had struggled with this for a long time after I first came across it. It caught my eye almost immediately when I was reading this chapter - the statement just seems to come out of nowhere and it uses nature itself as an antitype of the covenant that God has created with His people. The problem, though, is the reference to "Sun" and "Moon" - "Day" and "Night", and the pronouncement that these things are eternal to their types for as long as there is day or night, sun or moon.

There are many things in nature that point to God and creation and His relationship with His creation. Not just the sun and moon, day and night. There are “the heavens” and “the earth” and “the sea”, as well as the “stars” (that are “in His right hand”).

Christ comes “in the clouds of heaven”. Surely He’s not arriving in physical clouds that we see in the sky, though many do believe that will be the case.

I agree 100%. It's not within our power to find salvation and it's futile to try. It's only through the blood of Christ we're saved.

Probably my favorite part of the OT. I have a huge fondness for the prophets in particular.

It’s continually “unraveling”. And it’s SO AWESOME!!!

angelmom

 

[MercuryAndy]

People are like little children. Always blaming others to absolve themselves.

 

[davedjy]

No- the 2 points are connected- it is through a number of differences in design- that they are fundamentally different. I have gone to great lengths already to explain this- let me know if you need a link to this explanation. It is important to the point- because marriage is not determined solely by who you love- there are more parameters to it, and they reflect the original design of marriage.

As far as Bible Verses- we have already addressed a number of verses in the old and new testaments that speak directly against the homosexual act. It is not necessary to go into it again.

Lastly- we are not judged by our orientation- rather by what we do with our temptations. It is by our sinful acts that we are judged, not our temptations.

G

As I already told you, I do agree with design, I'm not arguing Adam and Steve, for crying out loud. I am saying as a result of their sin coming into the world, not only do we get tempted but we have defect. I don't believe God expects us to change, and if He does, that isn't a God I want to serve, I would rather go to hell, yes HELL. I have personally already tried changing for the past 11 years, all it did was bring me further into depression and suicidal thoughts. You people are barking up the wrong tree. Go hold up signs, wear shirts that say "straight is great", and on and on...

God's design is tainted already, so let's not go there.
1)handicapped kids
2)hermaphrodites
3)Conjoint twins
4)Cancer, etc.

God's design is tainted because of ADAM AND EVE'S free will and how they brought corruption and defect into this world. If God really wanted to change it, He would not allow homosexuality to be born into the bloodline to start. Lots of HIS creations already show these tendencies, and He doesn't stop it. So you are saying it is perverted in humans? Whatever...it's a bunch of conservative garbage crap and I am through with it. I don't like anyone who flaunts their sexuality, but I am seeing more and more why those parades exist, and I can't stand anything to do w/the gay cultural stuff (feminine walking, talking, wearing high heel shoes, etc), but nonetheless I get why they march in those parades.

Heck if I have to hold up picket signs, I might...I am SO sick of people trying to change others.
I am reminded of that reparative therapy comedy/satire "But I'm a Cheerleader"... hilarious.

 

[Gusoceros]

As I already told you, I do agree with design, I'm not arguing Adam and Steve, for crying out loud. I am saying as a result of their sin coming into the world, not only do we get tempted but we have defect. I don't believe God expects us to change, and if He does, that isn't a God I want to serve, I would rather go to hell, yes HELL. I have personally already tried changing for the past 11 years, all it did was bring me further into depression and suicidal thoughts. You people are barking up the wrong tree. Go hold up signs, wear shirts that say "straight is great", and on and on...

God's design is tainted already, so let's not go there.
1)handicapped kids
2)hermaphrodites
3)Conjoint twins
4)Cancer, etc.

God's design is tainted because of ADAM AND EVE'S free will and how they brought corruption and defect into this world. If God really wanted to change it, He would not allow homosexuality to be born into the bloodline to start. Lots of HIS creations already show these tendencies, and He doesn't stop it. So you are saying it is perverted in humans? Whatever...it's a bunch of conservative garbage crap and I am through with it. I don't like anyone who flaunts their sexuality, but I am seeing more and more why those parades exist, and I can't stand anything to do w/the gay cultural stuff (feminine walking, talking, wearing high heel shoes, etc), but nonetheless I get why they march in those parades.

Heck if I have to hold up picket signs, I might...I am SO sick of people trying to change others.
I am reminded of that reparative therapy comedy/satire "But I'm a Cheerleader"... hilarious.

God DOES expect you to change- He expects you to die to your flesh, and He will give you NEW desires in your heart- you will become a NEW creation.

• Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

I know it isnt easy- we all have temptations in our flesh my friend- they are just different. We are all sinners, and we all need the changing salvation of Christ.

It is your choice, and your responsibility if you will choose to repent, or stay committed to sin. Nobody is telling you it will be easy, Jesus is your new beginning- not somebody posting on an internet forum telling you to change- why listen to those folks anyway, it is God that has the standard, and the salvation for us.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Ok, you are the second person to say this on this thread.

How is that true, in light of what Christ called adultery? You need only lust after someone and you are guilty of adultery.

Moses said: thou shall not COMMIT adultery.

Christ said: DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!

I dont understand the confusion- if you are tempted- and harbor the temptation and dwell on it, then this is sin. If you are tempted, and you dismiss it out of your mind, and move on- this is not sin. The difference is what you do on it- Jesus is saying, you can harbor these temptations, and act on them in your mind- this is also sin. We are called not to dwell on these things.

So calling the “act” of homosexuality “the sin” but telling a homosexual to NOT ACT on it so it WON’T be sin is like telling a heterosexual that they can lust after others all they want so long as they don’t HAVE SEX (or “act” on it) with the object of their affection (outside of marriage).

see above

Yet the heterosexual has the opportunity to get married and ACT out those lusts with his/her spouse while the heterosexual is left to be consumed in their own unmet desires, etc.

We are all tempted, and left with unmet desires. God has said, He will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear.

If you are going to call it a SIN then call it a SIN but go so far as to acknowledge that even the DESIRE/LUST is A SIN (and not just the ACT) and then acknowledge that even HETEROSEXUAL desires and lusts are SINS as well.

Hetero gazing longingly on another's husband/wife, and harboring thoughts to this affect, is a sin. We are called to dismiss these thoughts.

It seems that heterosexuals want to stick to the “act” of homosexuality so that they can absolve themselves from their own sexual sins that they don't "act" on, even though they HAVE THEM… ???

Nope- its the same for all of us.

How convenient and how much more convenient that they also have an avenue (marriage) in which to “act” on those lusts/desires/etc so they don't have to call them a "sin".

We ALL have the avenue of marriage- lets not paint this into something it isnt. Additionally, we all have temptation- and God will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear.

Let me ask you this.... WHAT IF God had created many men and women besides Adam and Eve AND THEN God separated out Adam and gave him a helpmeet (Eve) and joined THEM together and blesses THEM, making THEM one flesh, to signify the relationship between Christ and the church.

Would you see marraige and this relationship any differently? As it relates to ALL men?

angelmom

I cant answer this- God's Word would then be different- and I would have to know more about it. However- God's Word is as it is, and we DO know what He says about marriage, sex, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

G

 

[intricatic]

No, I don’t believe they are empty indicators or that they are no longer applicable in any way, hence the words of Paul when he revealed what the MYSTERY was behind the marriage relationship. He didn’t tel us that it was no longer necessary or important, etc. he said:


Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

But the wife was no longer subject to her husband in the same way; the wives we no longer required to wear head coverings, etc.

Good deal, I can't argue with that.

How is anyone trying to “erase” it?

It's often misrepresented.

Do what? Realize how Christ and the church fulfills the type of the marriage relationship? Do you think that you have to be heterosexual or even married to be able to see that?

No. But marriage is the essential design for intimate human relationships.

Were they spiritually understood?

Yes. It's actually a wonderful example of what the law stood for.

What determines morality? The Law of Moses? Or Christ’s commandments?

Were they not the same?

Not sure. Wasn’t Israel cast off? Didn’t Christ fulfill the law and didn’t God make a NEW COVENANT and didn't Christ give new commandments?

Israel was never cast off. There were never new commandments given. The only difference between the old and the new is that the new is bound by the Spirit while the old was bound by the letter.

There are many things in nature that point to God and creation and His relationship with His creation. Not just the sun and moon, day and night. There are “the heavens” and “the earth” and “the sea”, as well as the “stars” (that are “in His right hand”).

Read Jeremiah 31. He's talking about two individual ideas represented by the sun and the moon.

He further explicates this idea;

19 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the LORD: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’”
(Jeremiah 33)

Christ comes “in the clouds of heaven”. Surely He’s not arriving in physical clouds that we see in the sky, though many do believe that will be the case.

What makes you believe otherwise? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious about your reasoning.

It’s continually “unraveling”. And it’s SO AWESOME!!!

That's for sure.

 

[intricatic]

As I already told you, I do agree with design, I'm not arguing Adam and Steve, for crying out loud. I am saying as a result of their sin coming into the world, not only do we get tempted but we have defect. I don't believe God expects us to change, and if He does, that isn't a God I want to serve, I would rather go to hell, yes HELL. I have personally already tried changing for the past 11 years, all it did was bring me further into depression and suicidal thoughts. You people are barking up the wrong tree. Go hold up signs, wear shirts that say "straight is great", and on and on...

No thanks, I'm not interested in politics. Like I said, I don't even vote.

 

[davedjy]

God DOES expect you to change- He expects you to die to your flesh, and He will give you NEW desires in your heart- you will become a NEW creation.

• Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

I know it isnt easy- we all have temptations in our flesh my friend- they are just different. We are all sinners, and we all need the changing salvation of Christ.

It is your choice, and your responsibility if you will choose to repent, or stay committed to sin. Nobody is telling you it will be easy, Jesus is your new beginning- not somebody posting on an internet forum telling you to change- why listen to those folks anyway, it is God that has the standard, and the salvation for us.

G

This is not about "sin struggle", it's about sexual orientation, stop making into something it isn't.
I know the difference, my conscience goes off when I tell a lie, do something wrong, (in the past) cheated on a test, etc.

Show me in the Bible where it talks about:

a)struggles w/same sex attraction NOT lust
b) sexual orienation

I refuse to go along w/some fear-based man-made doctrine, telling me I will go to hell.
I am saved, and freely justified by Jesus (I'm not saying that gives anyone a license to sin, because I don't believe this is a sin).

No thanks, I'm not interested in politics. Like I said, I don't even vote

You vote everytime you give your opinion, you vote everytime you tell a gay or bisexual person your viewpoints. Why are you even pretending to play some "in between" game? Religion IS politics, and you are showing what side you are on everytime you post in this forum, why pretend to be someone you aren't in this discussion?