Homosexuality

[Ohioprof]

Heterosexuality produces children, plain and simple.

Not most of the time. Now that we have birth control, rather infrequently.

 

[walloffire]

> If an attraction results in a child then it's not a sinful attraction?

Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You know that wasn't the question, and you know marriage is essential. Why tempt ye me?

 

[beechy]

> If an attraction results in a child then it's not a sinful attraction?

Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You know that wasn't the question, and you know marriage is essential. Why tempt ye me?

The question was why are homosexual attractions sinful while heterosexual attractions are not, and you answered because heterosexual attractions produce children. Did you mean to say something different? And why dost thou speakest in olde english?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz

And where are the verses approving of cross-sex sex? All of the verses that specifically talk about sex are talking about sexual sins. By your standard no sex is approved by the Bible.

Cross-sex sex? Do you mean man and woman, there are lots of verses approving of it, I have given several.. consider also Genesis 4 Adam knew Eve and conceived Cain.

Non-consensual sex is a polite way of saying rape. (Although it does include some things that less civilized generations would not have thought of as rape.) Rape is treated differently from consensual sex, even in the Bible.

Yes as I said we are discussing the lack of countenance for same-sex sex not your disbelief of the verses that condemn it and countenance man/woman union.

Some scholars note that there are two closely related, but different words in Hebrew that translate as lie, lie down, etc. Both have general usages, but can be used to euphamistically talk about sex. In the Bible, in every case, with two possible exceptions, where the one word is used, rather than the other, the sex is non-consensual. The two verses in question are Leviticus 18:22 and

20:13, raising the intriguing possibility that these verses, too, are speaking of non-consensual sex.

Then there are some very poor scholars around as shakab is simply to lie and is used sexually frequently. If gay and lesbian scholars are trying to re-write the Bible this much then they must be desperate.
The gay and lesbian arguments look to other factors with which they the can apply to the texts in order to change the meaning. If they applied the same to all the Bible none of it would make sense and if we all communicated in the same way we would never be able to understand each other.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear Olliefranz

Cross-sex sex? Do you mean man and woman, there are lots of verses approving of it, I have given several.. consider also Genesis 4 Adam knew Eve and conceived Cain.

No, all of the verses you mention speak of marriage, not sex. While there is some sex implied, since that is the normal route for conception and bearing sons, it is not stated, any more than it is stated whether David and Jonathan's relationship included sex. There is nothing wrong with a loving same-sex relationship, although, as with cross-sex relationships, sex should be a private affair between spouses.

Yes as I said we are discussing the lack of countenance for same-sex sex not your disbelief of the verses that condemn it and countenance man/woman union.

Then there are some very poor scholars around as shakab is simply to lie and is used sexually frequently. If gay and lesbian scholars are trying to re-write the Bible this much then they must be desperate.

Yes, both shakab and mishkav are frequently used in non-sexual ways, to simply mean "lie." But in every occurrance in the Hebrew Bible where shakab is used sexually, it always is in a situation where there was an impediment to full, informed consent, with the only potential exceptions being the two verses under examination.

Even the rabbis who interpreted the command to forbid all homosexual "lying" tacitly aknowledged that they were expanding the scope by their very language. They spoke of the ban as "mishkav zakur," using the more general word, rather than as "shakab zakur."

The gay and lesbian arguments look to other factors with which they the can apply to the texts in order to change the meaning. If they applied the same to all the Bible none of it would make sense and if we all communicated in the same way we would never be able to understand each other.

Personally, I am not a Hebrew scholar, and while I am impressed by the (easily verifiable) fact that shakab is always used in the Bible in instances of non-consensual sex, I am not quite convinced that it was always so used in other Hebrew writings. So I can't counter, or even convincingly disagree with the letter of your statement.

Fortuntely, it is not necessary to rely on that claim about shakab, since there is ample evidence in the Bible itself that whether Leviticus 18:22 only banned male-on-male rape or all male-on-male sexual penetration, it did not extend to any other aspect of a same-sex relationship, and the ban was nullified for consenting, committed, and covenanted Christians in Acts 10, 11, and 15 and Paul's letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians, as part of the same teachings that nullified the Sabbath blue laws, the dietary laws, and most of the other '"holiness code" laws from Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

 

[Floatingaxe]

As sex outside of marriage is also against God, it is safe to assume that David and Jonathan were not fornicators, let alone perverts.

As David was called by God "a man after His own heart", it is also safe to say he was not an abomination, either.

So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for illicit and damnable behaviours is nothing more than hot air.

 

[OllieFranz]

As sex outside of marriage is also against God, it is safe to assume that David and Jonathan were not fornicators, let alone perverts.

And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?

As David was called by God "a man after His own heart", it is also safe to say he was not an abomination, either.

And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?

So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for illicit and damnable behaviours is nothing more than hot air.

So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for ill-thought arguments is nothing more than hot air.

 

[Floatingaxe]

[/b]

And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?

Everyone knows that all sin is equally able to keep us from heaven. Homosexuality, however, in many--especially those in CF who claim Christianity--is a sin for which there is no remorse, which guarantees one a place in that lake of fire.

And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?

David repented of his sin, and was granted his forgiveness.

So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for ill-thought arguments is nothing more than hot air.

Yes, you ill-thought arguments are.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As sex outside of marriage is also against God, it is safe to assume that David and Jonathan were not fornicators, let alone perverts.

As David was called by God "a man after His own heart", it is also safe to say he was not an abomination, either.

So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for illicit and damnable behaviours is nothing more than hot air.

Wow... FA for the the "begging the question" award of the century!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

[/B]

And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?



And yet, David was an adulterer and a murderer. So are adultery and murder "nicer" than homosexuality?



So, one's ill-conceived wishful thinking in order to gain support for ill-thought arguments is nothing more than hot air.

And Lot offered up his daughters to be pack raped, and later slept with them and got them pregnant... yet he was a "righteous man"... go figure

 

[walloffire]

You know God is love, but God must also be judge. There is no other judge. If we are commanded not to judge one another, it is only because God is judge. He sees all, he has all the evidence, and he will repay. He is judge, jury, and executioner, and mercy-giver, on HIS terms.

(Isa 6:3) And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

(Rev 4:8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

He is holy. Just because he judges, doesn't make him "mean" or evil or anything of the sort. When a judge in your country sentences a mass murderer to death, do you judge the judge for judging the murderer? Why then do you judge God, whose job it is to judge the wicked of the world? like hitler and so forth? So that they don't just "get away with it"? The victims of many crimes have cried out to God, the Judge, for millenia for God to repay their oppressors. God will do it, he will bring the proud low and raise up the humble. He will judge those wicked deeds, for he is the only one wise enough, holy enough, and fit enough to judge properly, and to execute punishment appropriately. So stop judging God, the Judge, for judging the wicked, which is his responsibility and duty.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You know God is love, but God must also be judge. There is no other judge. If we are commanded not to judge one another, it is only because God is judge. He sees all, he has all the evidence, and he will repay. He is judge, jury, and executioner, and mercy-giver, on HIS terms.

(Isa 6:3) And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

(Rev 4:8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

He is holy. Just because he judges, doesn't make him "mean" or evil or anything of the sort. When a judge in your country sentences a mass murderer to death, do you judge the judge for judging the murderer? Why then do you judge God, whose job it is to judge the wicked of the world? like hitler and so forth? So that they don't just "get away with it"? The victims of many crimes have cried out to God, the Judge, for millenia for God to repay their oppressors. God will do it, he will bring the proud low and raise up the humble. He will judge those wicked deeds, for he is the only one wise enough, holy enough, and fit enough to judge properly, and to execute punishment appropriately. So stop judging God, the Judge, for judging the wicked, which is his responsibility and duty.

Hes just going around copypasting this in all the threads he's active in.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I'm addressing the first and second posts of this thread:

I'm a bisexual Christian, and I recently returned from a mental facility ... one of the primary reasons for my visit was my struggle with bisexuality and transsexuality. God is very important to me.

And, as the second, intolerant poster suggested, let us not forget 1 Corinthians 6.9-10:
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake-the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Thank God homosexuality and homosexual intercourse are not on that list.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm addressing the first and second posts of this thread:

I'm a bisexual Christian, and I recently returned from a mental facility ... one of the primary reasons for my visit was my struggle with bisexuality and transsexuality. God is very important to me.

And, as the second, intolerant poster suggested, let us not forget 1 Corinthians 6.9-10:
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake-the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Thank God homosexuality and homosexual intercourse are not on that list.

amen!

 

[AetheriusLamia]

And, if anyone is curious about the excerpt, it is copy/pasted from http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=46

What about this translation? I think it's a better one; many Bibles rely on the King James Version, which is both the logical fallacies appealing to tradition (it's always been translated "homosexuals") and appealing to novelty (the King James Version is famous merely because it was the first). See Wikipedia about why appealing to novelty or tradition are both logical fallacies.

And, if your kneejerk reaction is "well it doesn't matter, 'cause my Bible says ..." please bear in mind that God gave us logic for a reason: to think about what God truly wants from us. So logical fallacies are very, very important.

From http://www.catholic.org/bible/
The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. It has the imprimatur of Cardinal George Basil Hume.

Like its predecessor, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) version is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic." The 1973 French translation, the Bible de Jerusalem, is followed only "where the text admits to more than one interpretation." Introductions and notes, with some modifications, are taken from the Bible de Jerusalem.

Source: The Very Reverend Dom (Joseph) Henry Wansbrough, OSB, MA (Oxon), STL (Fribourg), LSS (Rome), a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar. He was General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible. "New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition", pg. v.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible for more detail. From this link:
Source of the NJB
Like its predecessor, the Jerusalem Bible, this version is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic." The 1973 French translation, the Bible de Jérusalem, is followed only "where the text admits to more than one interpretation." Introductions and notes, with some modifications, are taken from the Bible de Jérusalem[1].

 

[Floatingaxe]

I'm addressing the first and second posts of this thread:

I'm a bisexual Christian, and I recently returned from a mental facility ... one of the primary reasons for my visit was my struggle with bisexuality and transsexuality. God is very important to me.

And, as the second, intolerant poster suggested, let us not forget 1 Corinthians 6.9-10:
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake-the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Thank God homosexuality and homosexual intercourse are not on that list.

What the heck do you think that sodomites do?

Get real and consider your vice.

Do you love God enough to accept His Son as your Saviour AND LORD? He wants to be your LORD. If you cannot place Him first over your desires, then you have an idol.

 

[Floatingaxe]

please bear in mind that God gave us logic for a reason: to think about what God truly wants from us. So logical fallacies are very, very important.

God didn't give us the marvellous faculty of logic to misuse it to worm our way out of what God plainly tells us is perverse to Him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What the heck do you think that sodomites do?

Get real and consider your vice.

Do you love God enough to accept His Son as your Saviour AND LORD? He wants to be your LORD. If you cannot place Him first over your desires, then you have an idol.

The Bible says the sins of Sodom were haughtiness and being poor hosts... "sodomy" wasn't used to apply to male homosexuals until approx the 13th centuray.

Soirry, but history, like, well, the rest of reality, says you fail

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God didn't give us the marvellous faculty of logic to misuse it to worm our way out of what God plainly tells us is perverse to Him.

In the verse that you are unable to quote, right?

 

[Catholicon]

God didn't give us the marvellous faculty of logic to misuse it to worm our way out of what God plainly tells us is perverse to Him.

And WHERE does God tell us that?

Chapter and Verse, please.