Homosexuality

[onemorequestion]

Nice rant stephen, the evil of the world is due to human ignorance or greed, it cannot be destroyed, it exists as evidence of the negative results of our lives at judgement.

Evil does not come from ignorance, it comes from the exact opposite of ignorance.

I think you could be referring to evil spirits of the world, it is my understanding that their affairs are not ours, we are to worship The Lord and have nothing to do with His enemy or what happens on their day of judgement.

Jesus and Peter seem to say that we are to notice them and make sure we don't get involved in the affairs they cause to happen.

The problem in our world dates back to Eden since that time the human has been born with a heart leaning away from God and toward sin.

Didn't Eve confess her sinning honesstly and accurately? Only Adam didn't repent. He blamed God for making him the way he did. This shows evil is something we grasp or don't grasp. And it sounds very familiar right now in today's world huh?

A change (baptism in Jesus' name) means the disciple is now acutely aware of sin and as you said, will naturally prefer to turn away from sin and toward God.

100% solid. Solid as the fruit on a good tree.

 

[Archivist]

On the contrary that’s a further condition you have placed on the argument.

No, requiring consent isn't a "further condition," it is a basic requirement Even within a marriage, consent is required in most jurisdictions.

If the argument is based on sexual attraction being innate, which is often put forward, then paedophilia and bestiality qualify.

No, beacsue the sexual act requires consent.

If however it is also about consent then the original humanistic argument should include it.

Good luck finding a legituimate source that is promoting non-consentual sex.

But as I said it is all irrelevant humanism as God’s word shows God made man and woman to be in faithful union, and not another combination.

Perhaps.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,
Sexual attraction, sexuality, is not the same as sexual intercourse. My reference was to sexuality. I am not aware sexuality needs consent. Do people need consent from someone else that they find them sexually attractive?

Thus my statement stands as valid, if justfication for a sexual acts was based soley on the attraction being innate, then paedopilia and bestiality could be justfied.

 

[onemorequestion]

Phinehas2,

Agree with the consent of the participants aspect.

Then, it is fair and proper to the judgment already imposed on the individuals engaging in what they have chosen to engage in, as guilty unto themselves.

Therefore when the comparison about divorce and adultery being engaged in "in the Church" by people that walk and talk in those Churches . . ., condemns the homosexual theological position on what it states as the motive for its use. That being somehow two wrongs CAN make a right.

Two wrongs do not make a right is an absolute truth of God. At least, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God Jesus said He was.

Unless of course the wrongs are repented of.

And as we see exclusively in the gay theological position, and in the EXACT same way as it is demanded in the secular (godless) worldview, the practioners of homosexuality demand that they have nothing to repent of. And the inact a threatening action towards those that dare oppose them. (Sounds very Lot familiar.)

The judgment of that is towards the individual and corporate practioner.

We who do not support the concept of two wrongs making a right (as is always the case of those espousing the theology of God in Christ) are not being personally judgmental, but, are just agreeing with the judgment already handed down by God in scripture.

 

[Archivist]

Sexual attraction, sexuality, is not the same as sexual intercourse. My reference was to sexuality. I am not aware sexuality needs consent. Do people need consent from someone else that they find them sexually attractive? Thus my statement stands as valid, if justfication for a sexual acts was based soley on the attraction being innate, then paedopilia and bestiality could be justfied.

No, your statement is incorrect. Bestiality refers to the sexual act itself, not the sexual attraction. Blacks Law Dictionary defines it as "sexual activity between a human and an animal." Sexual attraction that a human may have for an animal is zoophilia, not bestiality.

 

[Archivist]

Gays can be christian, cause they are people

Well said. Homosexuals are inperfect human being, sinners just like the rest of us, and it is only through the Blood of the Lamb that any of us can be saved.

 

[onemorequestion]

Gays can be christian, cause they are people

People are people.

Gay is a neologism to describe choices, thoughts and behavior. It's a product of the world and its ways.

 

[onemorequestion]

No, your statement is incorrect. Bestiality refers to the sexual act itself, not the sexual attraction. Blacks Law Dictionary defines it as "sexual activity between a human and an animal." Sexual attraction that a human may have for an animal is zoophilia, not bestiality.

So then, no one is homosexual until they do homosexuality.

This is how the Church should handle this subject. Never allow the world and its ways to define us.

 

[KCKID]

So then, no one is homosexual until they do homosexuality.

This is how the Church should handle this subject. Never allow the world and its ways to define us.

Then God should have created gods instead of human beings. God creates imperfect human beings while expecting them to be god-like or perfect. Does this not sound somewhat strange and unreasonable or am I being too logical?

 

[oi_antz]

Then God should have created gods instead of human beings. God creates imperfect human beings while expecting them to be god-like or perfect. Does this not sound somewhat strange and unreasonable or am I being too logical?

You're missing some facts about how the human became sinful in the first place, it is being discussed over here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7486162/

 

[addo]

Humanity became sinful (this is in response to KCKID) because Adam, our representative, sinned and thus we all sinned with Him and suffer the consequences of his sin and so is with Eve.

Simple to understand. We were all "in" Adam when He sinned just like Levi also payed the tenth trough Abraham when "he was yet in the loins of His father". My point is that we were one with Adam and thus when he sinned, all sinned, and we all come from him.

So he represented all humanity and because he sinned, all humanity is affected by his sin. When God spoke about Adam's punishment, do you think He was referring to Adam only or to all mankind? That is because we are all in Adam. Or when He spoke about Eve's punishment do you think He was referring only to Eve and not the rest of women?

Adam was our representative and when He sinned, we suffer the consequences of his sin. We are all sinful because of him.

It's easy to understand.

 

[Phinehas2]

God created male and female, it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. Celibacy is the alternative. Same sex relationships are error as are other sexual relations outside marriage. Reality and anatomy shows what God has created.

Homosexuality is disordered and dysfucntional both in thinking and acts.

People either believe the word of God or they believe what they feel themselves. I could believe that as I am naturally suspectible to lying that must be ok and God should have made me able not to lie. However then I would be believing my own ideas and not God's word.

Thats what we have with pro-gay thinking, it is falsehood and deception and a whole new religion. ... but it certainly isnt Christianity.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

No, your statement is incorrect. Bestiality refers to the sexual act itself, not the sexual attraction.

As I said if a man has sex with another man or with an animal its is detestable to God. If you think people do such things who arent attracted to it, thats up to you, makes not difference to God.

 

[KCKID]

Humanity became sinful (this is in response to KCKID) because Adam, our representative, sinned and thus we all sinned with Him and suffer the consequences of his sin and so is with Eve.

Simple to understand. We were all "in" Adam when He sinned just like Levi also payed the tenth trough Abraham when "he was yet in the loins of His father". My point is that we were one with Adam and thus when he sinned, all sinned, and we all come from him.

So he represented all humanity and because he sinned, all humanity is affected by his sin. When God spoke about Adam's punishment, do you think He was referring to Adam only or to all mankind? That is because we are all in Adam. Or when He spoke about Eve's punishment do you think He was referring only to Eve and not the rest of women?

Adam was our representative and when He sinned, we suffer the consequences of his sin. We are all sinful because of him.

It's easy to understand.

It's 'easy to understand' as long as one turns off the logical part of their brains and simply 'accepts' a well-known story at face value.

By the way, that was not intended to be offensive.

Another 'by the way' ...you never acknowledged my having responded to your having asked of me 'where does it say that planting different crops side by side is an abomination'? I DID respond although I can't for the life of me find this particular post since the search feature appears not to be working.

 

[KCKID]

You're missing some facts about how the human became sinful in the first place, it is being discussed over here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7486162/

Well, I'm not sure about actual 'facts' but thanks for the link.

 

[Phinehas2]

KCKID,
see my post on the other thread. If the pro-gay argument cant see for example the Romans 1 passage which describes as part of supressing the truth of God as men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men whcih is error, but suggest it is temple prostitution which isnt mentioned, then that is either some massive spiritual blindness, or serious halucination. What the pro-gay argument certainly isnt is the word of God.

 

[Archivist]

Archivist,
As I said if a man has sex with another man or with an animal its is detestable to God. If you think people do such things who arent attracted to it, thats up to you, makes not difference to God.

Then use proper terms. Don't use the term for the sexual act and expect me or others to know that you are actually talking about sexual attraction.

I don't read minds so if you use words incorrectly, I can't be expected to know what you mean.

 

[KCKID]

KCKID,
see my post on the other thread. If the pro-gay argument cant see for example the Romans 1 passage which describes as part of supressing the truth of God as men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men whcih is error, but suggest it is temple prostitution which isnt mentioned, then that is either some massive spiritual blindness, or serious halucination. What the pro-gay argument certainly isnt is the word of God.

*sigh*

'Abandoning' means to forsake or relinquish or leave behind something that one was previously accustomed to doing, believing, etc. If men 'abandoned' their natural use of women then they were obviously heterosexual men who previously (prior to abandoning) had sexual relations with women. Furthermore, they were men who were more than likely married ...to a woman. Do you really not see this or are you simply being obstinate?

Okay, now we agree on this point they were heterosexual men who were apparently committing indecent acts (I guess we are left to imagine what that might mean) with other men. What we need to determine here is WHY were heterosexual men behaving in this way? It is quite obviously referring to ritualistic pagan practices that revolved around the worship of false idols. Any Bible scholar who does not acknowledge the above as being more than likely an explanation for this scripture is being intentionally deceptive!

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

Then use proper terms.

Then tell God, it is His word I have cited, quoted and paraphrased.
If you think gay is men with women as opposed to men with men, then get the dictionary changed.

 

[Phinehas2]

KCKID,
I would have to see a dictionary definition of abandon that specifically included it being about what one believes, as opposed to just ceasing doing anything.
Otherwise your argument is just a dream.

If men 'abandoned' their natural use of women then they were obviously heterosexual men who previously (prior to abandoning) had sexual relations with women.

As the text passage starts by indicating what men do when they suppress the truth of God, the pro-gay argument is a good indication of the suppression of the truth. As, not ‘if’ but as the text says men abandoned the natural use of women and committed indecent acts with other men, which is error, then in pro-gay terms heterosexual is ok but homosexual is suppressing the truth of God and error.

Okay, now we agree on this point they were heterosexual men

No, no such thing as heterosexual and homosexual in God’s word, that’s pro-gay thinking.. no use to me, I am a believer in God’s word.

What we need to determine here is WHY were heterosexual men behaving in this way?

The text tells us that the men were doing things that were error and suppressing the truth of God.

It is quite obviously referring to ritualistic pagan practices that revolved around the worship of false idols.

Which is suppressing the truth of God. The passage is referring to your pro-gay argument. There is no mention of rituals or pagan practices, adding such assumptions is just an attempt to suppress the truth f God. Though this is what pagans do as described elsewhere in the Bible. So according to Romans 1, some of the pagans who suppress God’s truth and commit indecent same sex acts must be the pro-gay group.