If being homosexual is a sin, then why did God create homosexuals?

eves_adam said:

I have yet to see a single passage of scripture from the so-called fundamentalists or christians who claim biblical text denounces homosexuality. The sad part is that so much can be clarified by actually citing text and by interpreting said text in light of the historical, political and ethical circumstances at the time such text was written.

For example, if you examine the text in Romans 1 24-27, you must examine the text in the following light: if there is a condemnation of "homosexuality" then such condemnations must be interpreted in light of typical "homosexual" relations occuring at the time: that between grown men and boys. Clearly, there is a power differential and abuse of power. Is this therefore a condemnation of homosexuality per se or a condemnation of non consensual relationships?

Here is a link which will help those who are unfamiliar with the process of exegesis:

http://www.christcovenantmcc.org/notsin_notsickness.htm

Again, ask yourself the question: what is being condemned: is it an act, or the power differential instead?

Let's try to think, people. Claiming christian or fundamentalist status does not excuse one from the challenging process of exegetical work and analysis. Rather it DEMANDS such work. You have to pay the piper if you want to march.

Click to expand...

I'm always open to opinion -

Do you think that the Bible is clear on stating that sex outside of marriage is considered sinful? If so, please help me understand the following:

If, as Paul says, we are to marry rather than burn with passion - where does homosexuality fit into the marriage passages (Ephesians)? Who is husband/wife? How do you make that determination? And the passages pertaining to remarriage after divorce all seem to refer to man/woman as well.

Flibbertigibbet said:

I'm always open to opinion -

Do you think that the Bible is clear on stating that sex outside of marriage is considered sinful? If so, please help me understand the following:

If, as Paul says, we are to marry rather than burn with passion - where does homosexuality fit into the marriage passages (Ephesians)? Who is husband/wife? How do you make that determination? And the passages pertaining to remarriage after divorce all seem to refer to man/woman as well.

Click to expand...

First, this is where the difference between normative and prescriptive comes in. In a normative statement the most common of several alternatives is used (as an example) but the less common alternatives are also included. In a prescriptive statement, the other alternatives are excluded, and even prohibited. Since normative statements are more common, prescriptive statements usually have "markers" to indicate their status.

For example, most statements that speak of men in general mean all of humankind and include women as well. If it pertains only to males, there is some indication that it does.

The Bible nowhere defines what a marriage is or who may or may not contract one. It advises marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and gives guidelines for married life -- including some commands -- to ensure that the marriage is healthy, happy and Godly.

In Ephesians, Paul seems to give separate teachings to wives from those he gives to the husbands, but if you look deeply, only the language is different, the actual commands (or advice) are the same:

Immediately before telling wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22), Paul tells all members of the Church to submit one to another(Eph 5:21). Wives submitting to husbands is just one example of this general submission to one another.

Similarly, Eph 5:24 and Eph 5:28-29 are speaking of the same thing: that each spouse should put the needs of the other above their own. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor 7:3-4, and although in that context he is specifically talking about sex, the Ephesians passage shows that it is good advice for all aspects of the marriage.

Allthisworld said:

Not My interpretation Gods.

Click to expand...

No it is your personal interoperation. The verses you are trying to use to justify your personal prejudice (bigotry if you prefer) have been interpreted differently over the centuries and used to justify all sorts of things form racism to genocide.

God, knows what is right and wrong and when we stand before God you will see your thoughts unravel before your eyes.

Click to expand...

And how will you answer God when he asks you why you used the bible to justify your own petty personal prejudices?

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Click to expand...

I notice you ignored what was posted and tired to change the topic here. Couldn’t come up with an actual response?


The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

Galatians 2:15-16 (NIV)
“ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

Click to expand...

Nice double standard you present here.

You want to inflict your personal interoperation of biblical law on other people yet you want to position yourself above biblical law

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
Romans 3: 29

Who are the Gentiles??????ANY RACE OTHER THAN JEWISH

Click to expand...

Did you even read what was posted?

Let me refersh your memory:
“Racists also happily use the bible and the fact God clearly defined the white race as superior to justify their personal prejudice (bigotry). DO you agree with the racists? (remember God said it )”

so why don’t you answer the question

OllieFranz said:

First, this is where the difference between normative and prescriptive comes in. In a normative statement the most common of several alternatives is used (as an example) but the less common alternatives are also included. In a prescriptive statement, the other alternatives are excluded, and even prohibited. Since normative statements are more common, prescriptive statements usually have "markers" to indicate their status.

For example, most statements that speak of men in general mean all of humankind and include women as well. If it pertains only to males, there is some indication that it does.

The Bible nowhere defines what a marriage is or who may or may not contract one. It advises marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and gives guidelines for married life -- including some commands -- to ensure that the marriage is healthy, happy and Godly.

In Ephesians, Paul seems to give separate teachings to wives from those he gives to the husbands, but if you look deeply, only the language is different, the actual commands (or advice) are the same:

Immediately before telling wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22), Paul tells all members of the Church to submit one to another(Eph 5:21). Wives submitting to husbands is just one example of this general submission to one another.

Similarly, Eph 5:24 and Eph 5:28-29 are speaking of the same thing: that each spouse should put the needs of the other above their own. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor 7:3-4, and although in that context he is specifically talking about sex, the Ephesians passage shows that it is good advice for all aspects of the marriage.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Ollie.

IzzyPop said:

No, your interpretation of the Bible supports your own prejudice. Funny how that works, eh?

Click to expand...

"You know you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do" – Anne Lamott

To the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is not an acquired feature via genetics. This struggle with sin is akin to the struggle with other sins: drinking, gluttony, hatred (ie racism and classism), sloth, and the whole gamut which is all common to humans. I am not demeaning this struggle, or trivializing it. Within my own personal life and family, sexual orientation has been a struggle. Succumbing to homosexuality is a choice. And "love" is not a justification for this type of human interaction. "Love," as the world defines it, leads to a slippery slope of justification for many types of sinful interactions. Agape love allows for love amongst many different types of people. Friendship defines a respectful and caring relationship between two people. Married love is specifically defined by God, in the bible, as between a man and a woman. This relationship is even defined outside the Judeo-Christian realm. The Lord God did not create sin, sinful behavior, or coerce us into choosing sinful behavior. Being tempted and struggling with sin is a reality of our lives. To be in a "lifestyle" which promotes sin damages the human soul, even though while in that 'lifestyle' one may feel/think that no wrong is being committed.

Flibbertigibbet said:

I'm always open to opinion -

Do you think that the Bible is clear on stating that sex outside of marriage is considered sinful?

Click to expand...

Rape is used (and condoned) repeatedly in the bible to force young girls into marriage.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Judges 5:30
How does this fit in with the sanctimony of marriage?

If so, please help me understand the following:

If, as Paul says, we are to marry rather than burn with passion - where does homosexuality fit into the marriage passages (Ephesians)?

Click to expand...

Its called same sex marriage

Who is husband/wife? How do you make that determination?

Click to expand...

Why would you or anyone assume that married gays/lesbians have or want a “husband”/“wife?

And the passages pertaining to remarriage after divorce all seem to refer to man/woman as well.

Click to expand...

and its amazing how many Christians are divorced and remarried. And just how many Christians ignore all those rules of marriage when it comes to heterosexuals

Kalen said:

To the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is not an acquired feature via genetics.

Click to expand...

What does not exist is any evidence that homosexuality is a choice or that homosexuality is the result of how one was raised or the relationship one had with ones mother and/or father, or that homosexuality is the result of some child hood trauma, or any other social, psychological or familial factor.
Of course if you know of a legitimately published study providing evidence for any of this please reference it I would be very interested in reading it

This struggle with sin is akin to the struggle with other sins: drinking, gluttony, hatred (ie racism and classism), sloth, and the whole gamut which is all common to humans.

Click to expand...

Its interesting you bring up racism in a post justifying discrimination against a minority.

Racists present the same case you are presenting here. To justify their personal prejudice and advocate for discrimination a racist will happily compare people of color to criminals (usually sex based crimes) as well a host of other unsavory attributes in an attempt to link the non-whites to pedophiles, rapists, the lazy, the uneducated, the unclean, alcoholics, substance abusers and so on. Such comparisons are at best insulting and in no way conductive to actual discussion.

I am not demeaning this struggle, or trivializing it.

Click to expand...

But you are attempting to demean an entire minority with the comparison

Within my own personal life and family, sexual orientation has been a struggle. Succumbing to homosexuality is a choice.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that living a life of self hatred and deception is a good thing?

And yes this is what you are suggesting.

And "love" is not a justification for this type of human interaction. "Love," as the world defines it, leads to a slippery slope of justification for many types of sinful interactions. Agape love allows for love amongst many different types of people. Friendship defines a respectful and caring relationship between two people.

Click to expand...

Can you explain who the prejudice you are promoting is in any way “love”?

Married love is specifically defined by God, in the bible, as between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

Usually that marriage is polygamous and involves rape

This relationship is even defined outside the Judeo-Christian realm. The Lord God did not create sin, sinful behavior, or coerce us into choosing sinful behavior.

Click to expand...

Like the sins of prejudice and discrimination? Or are these things OK when you choose to do them?

Being tempted and struggling with sin is a reality of our lives. To be in a "lifestyle" which promotes sin damages the human soul, even though while in that 'lifestyle' one may feel/think that no wrong is being committed.

Click to expand...

Is this “lifestyle” you are speaking of anything like the black lifestyle?

Flibbertigibbet said:

(Ephesians)? Who is husband/wife? How do you make that determination? [/COLOR]

Click to expand...

To add to what BBW said (very well, btw), I was watching a wonderful movie where a heterosexual asked a gay guy, "which one of you is 'the woman'? "

The gay man answered, "That's just it. We don't have to choose." It was a pretty deep answer. Heterosexuality has a male/dominant role, and a female/passive role. Traditionally, the man made the money, the woman stayed home. Now, women want the freedom to have a career, but men are still stuck in the "breadwinner" role. They are still expected to pay for the date, ask the woman out, be the one who proposes, takes out the garbage, etc. I read an interesting article about a man who was laid off, and his wife asked if she could work for a while, and he stay at home caring for their daughter. He said yes, but when he met women with their kids at the park, they all wanted to know why he was so lazy, and made his wife work. (Is a wife or mother lazy? That's a 24/7 job.)

With gay men, though, either of you can ask the other out. More often than not, the relationship is usually one of equality - shared expenses, shared decisions, shared housework, shared cooking, shared initiators of intimacy.
All of my relationships have been pretty 50/50. I think it confuses heterosexuals who ask, "who's the man", because we both are, and we are both "the woman." We don't subscribe to heterosexual constraints, and rightly so. I'm always confused when I hear someone say, shocked by the revelation that someone he knows is gay, "well, are you the guy? (the active partner?)" That is said because heterosexual men think less of women.

Think about it. You want to insult a woman, you call her a sow, a pig, a dog, a cow. If you want to insult a man, you call him a woman.

To the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is not an acquired feature via genetics.

Click to expand...

So we can basically break this down to an "I don't know." For my part, I am also in this as I am not any sort of scientist who would be dealing with it. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there is ultimately a biochemical structure behind it. For me though, this is for the greater part, immaterial.

This struggle with sin is akin to the struggle with other sins: drinking, gluttony, hatred (ie racism and classism), sloth, and the whole gamut which is all common to humans.

Click to expand...

Putting aside that I don't believe in sin for a moment. Beyond liking someone of the same sex instead of the opposite, comparing homosexuality to all those things is asinine. Simply being homosexual doesn't=intentionally damaging your liver and other organs, damaging your body with overeating, dictates a definite social stance, make you procrastinate. In short, your comparison is a horrible one. Particularly since you can quite well be a drunk,greedy,hateful or lazy gay person. That speaks to a person being drunk, greedy, hateful or lazy. Not their sexual orientation. Please lets at least try to come up with comparisons that make sense.

I am not demeaning this struggle, or trivializing it.

Click to expand...

Struggle is a rather general and flippant term in this case. It sounds dangerous close to creating a straw man. To say someone struggles with bad behavior is one thing. To say someone struggles being something which is not inherently evil or harmful of either themselves or another because OTHER people create a negative situation over their sexual orientation and as a result treats them unfairly and socially ostracizes them is quite another.

People rightfully struggle with that in the world today. But that's not an indication of their own faults. it's an indication that OTHER people are in the wrong.

Within my own personal life and family, sexual orientation has been a struggle. Succumbing to homosexuality is a choice

Click to expand...

Again. Your choice of words leads me to believe this is just an elaborate straw man. I see struggle is repeated. And I see you use the term 'succumbing." Both seem to imply attempting to deal with a negative addiction or temptation.

Again I'd say the reality tends to be a person coming to terms with the desire to not keep hiding who they are simply for the sake of conformity to a family, group of friends,etc they feel would harm them emotionally or even perhaps physically if they reveal who they are.

Again I would say this is a condemnation of those who would act so selfishly and harmfully to another. Not a condemnation of some one who is homosexual.

. And "love" is not a justification for this type of human interaction. "Love," as the world defines it, leads to a slippery slope of justification for many types of sinful interactions.

Click to expand...

Why is it that when certain people, and I hate to say it, but usually it's Christians. Used the term "the world" they use it both so flippantly and vaguely. As if the entire world BUT Christians are homogeneous in some sort of selfish, carefree behavior, as to use the word love simply as a synonym of lust or to justify anything else that is in the end selfish behavior. It is honestly so difficult for such people who use the term to acknowledge the reality that there really is no "the world." Because it's quite easy to find people who are not of your creed who disagree quite a bit with using the word love so badly?

In the interests of intellectual honesty, I ask that you do that. Instead of throwing out generalities that just spit on people for no reason that I can ascertain.

Agape love allows for love amongst many different types of people. Friendship defines a respectful and caring relationship between two people.

Click to expand...

Ok agreeing in general so far.

Married love is specifically defined by God, in the bible, as between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

Marriage existed as a cultural phenomenon before Christianity and before the bible. Christianity does not own any patent on marriage or what marriage represents, or what is a proper marriage ceremony or tradition. Nor shall it ever.

This relationship is even defined outside the Judeo-Christian realm. The Lord God did not create sin, sinful behavior, or coerce us into choosing sinful behavior. Being tempted and struggling with sin is a reality of our lives. To be in a "lifestyle" which promotes sin damages the human soul, even though while in that 'lifestyle' one may feel/think that no wrong is being committed.

Click to expand...

If I was Christian I would agree....when you proved it was a sin that damages the human soul.

visionary said:

Homosexuality is only an issue when you are having difficulty with it. When the Lord cleanses your life, I mean truly cleanses it, there will be no homosexuality demon pestering you. Just as the parable about the demon being cleaned out the house, if he comes back and finds it empty, which means the Lord was not reigning in the temple, he will invite his friends back and the soul will in worse condition than before. Don't blame God for that. That was your own choice.

One of the worse things about those defending homosexuality and wanting God's blessing is that they have to realise the argument is not going to be won on this thread, even if you think you have an awesome argument. You are wrestling with God and when like Jacob you realise that is who you are really fighting, let go and let God work His miracles in your life.

Click to expand...

There is no demon of homosexuality just as there is no demon of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is NOT demonic.

BigBadWlf said:

Why would you or anyone assume that married gays/lesbians have or want a “husband”/“wife?
I didn't assume that they did. If you will re-read my post, you will see that I was asking how the passages regarding marriage instructions to husband/wife would be interpreted in a homosexual relationship.

and its amazing how many Christians are divorced and remarried. And just how many Christians ignore all those rules of marriage when it comes to heterosexuals

Click to expand...

Again, I wasn't referring to divorce - just to the question of the Bible addressing husband/wife relationships in those passages.

Are you always so reactionary?

Beanieboy said:

To add to what BBW said (very well, btw), I was watching a wonderful movie where a heterosexual asked a gay guy, "which one of you is 'the woman'? "

The gay man answered, "That's just it. We don't have to choose." It was a pretty deep answer. Heterosexuality has a male/dominant role, and a female/passive role. Traditionally, the man made the money, the woman stayed home. Now, women want the freedom to have a career, but men are still stuck in the "breadwinner" role. They are still expected to pay for the date, ask the woman out, be the one who proposes, takes out the garbage, etc. I read an interesting article about a man who was laid off, and his wife asked if she could work for a while, and he stay at home caring for their daughter. He said yes, but when he met women with their kids at the park, they all wanted to know why he was so lazy, and made his wife work. (Is a wife or mother lazy? That's a 24/7 job.)

With gay men, though, either of you can ask the other out. More often than not, the relationship is usually one of equality - shared expenses, shared decisions, shared housework, shared cooking, shared initiators of intimacy.
All of my relationships have been pretty 50/50. I think it confuses heterosexuals who ask, "who's the man", because we both are, and we are both "the woman." We don't subscribe to heterosexual constraints, and rightly so. I'm always confused when I hear someone say, shocked by the revelation that someone he knows is gay, "well, are you the guy? (the active partner?)" That is said because heterosexual men think less of women.

Think about it. You want to insult a woman, you call her a sow, a pig, a dog, a cow. If you want to insult a man, you call him a woman.

Click to expand...

Hey Beanie - good to hear from you. I wasn't implying that one takes a feminine role and the other the masculine.

I was asking how Christian homosexuals interpret and apply Ephesians - since it specifically states "husbands" and "wives." Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Wondering if homosexuality is a sin is easy for me.

I just picture a split screen. On one side, two hot lesbians are getting married in a beautiful seaside ceremony. The waves crash blissfully against the shore as friends and relatives, some with little children watch and throw rice and so on and so forth.

On the other side God is drowing the world. A pregnant woman screams in pain and terror as the water fills her lungs, a baby floats face down next to her. The waves crash blissfully against the shore.....

Yeah...I'm being graphic and sarcastic and whatnot. But if the whole point of these threads is taking the Bible at face value...well then lets take it at face value then.

Flibbertigibbet said:

Hey Beanie - good to hear from you. I wasn't implying that one takes a feminine role and the other the masculine.

I was asking how Christian homosexuals interpret and apply Ephesians - since it specifically states "husbands" and "wives." Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Click to expand...

Christian and in a long term homosexual relationship here. My answer would be that husband and wife dosent nessecerily denote (to me at least) male or female, it just denotes a couple.. and you can both be part of what makes up that "husband and wife" role as Beanie says.

kiwimac said:

There is no demon of homosexuality just as there is no demon of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is NOT demonic.

Click to expand...

Any unnatural act, even lying is from the Father of Lies, the devil. All evil thoughts is demonic. Yes, homosexuality is not of God.

There is no biblical justification for your statement, not one. The suggestion that homosexuality is a lie is also more than a little insulting to those folk who have known since they were very small that they were not like others.

Any unnatural act, even lying is from the Father of Lies, the devil. All evil thoughts is demonic. Yes, homosexuality is not of God.

Click to expand...

But God drowning tons of people in a fit of anger is?....Okay............................*backs away slowly*

visionary said:

Any unnatural act, even lying is from the Father of Lies, the devil. All evil thoughts is demonic. Yes, homosexuality is not of God.

Click to expand...

I could so have you under our new E&M blasphemy laws.

So homosexuality is un-natural?

Define "natural" for me.

Fin12 said:

I could so have you under our new E&M blasphemy laws.

So homosexuality is un-natural?

Define "natural" for me.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is ungodly, unrighteous, unrewarded... <staff edit>