If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

[LightHorseman]

hey, they claim fornication is "victimless" too - even tho they know
full well how many casualties it leaves in its path.

Emotional, physical & spiritual consequences are everywhere -
unfortunately, alot of people don't see the harm & damage until
years later when it's changed them so drastically or they end
up in the hospital w/ physical problems including pregnancy
& STD's which they say are at epidemic levels.

But it's harmless.

Once again, unable to provide a legitimate reason to condemn homosexuality, someone draws our attention to something else, unrelated to homosexuality, that is condemnable, hopes that the condemnation will stick, and that somehow homosexuality will be condemned by association.

See also beastiality and incest.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So you sin as something seperate to logically determined morality?

What I am saying is that sin is disobedience to God's law. I don't know where your logic is coming from, it could be the logic of man. "Logically determined morality" if it is not determined by God, it is by men. When it comes to morality, I don't follow the laws of man but that of the laws of God, that is what I have to give an account to on the day of judgment.

 

[JediMobius]

Its not a matter of homosexuality being a "victimless crime", its a matter of it not being a crime at all because there is no logical reason to consider it thus.

It's the same line of reasoning though, isn't it? 'It's not hurting anyone, so it's fine.' But what we keep saying is that logic can justify almost any offense if enough people go along with it. Conversely, it doesn't matter if we can logically reason why something is a sin if God tells us it is a sin.

I've deduced that homosexual sex is wrong because it defies God's plan for humans, created as man and woman, but that doesn't satisfy everyone's logic. I've been compared to racists who have committed atrocities for claiming that the bible includes homosexual sex as a sin, and the argument is always similar to yours. A lot of people don't see anything wrong with it, but that's looking at it from man's perspective, not God's perspective as we ought to.

 

[Tissue]

@OP: Depends what 'image of God' refers to. I've never understood that as expressing anything regarding heterosexuality over homosexuality.

 

[LightHorseman]

What I am saying is that sin is disobedience to God's law. I don't know where your logic is coming from, it could be the logic of man. "Logically determined morality" if it is not determined by God, it is by men. When it comes to morality, I don't follow the laws of man but that of the laws of God, that is what I have to give an account to on the day of judgment.

Indeed? So, do you remain kosher? Do you believe rape victims should be stoned to death? How do you feel about slavery?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Indeed? So, do you remain kosher? Do you believe rape victims should be stoned to death? How do you feel about slavery?

Kosher?
Does scripture say rape victims should be stoned to death?
What about slavery? Are you asking about slavery in what we know in scripture or how people have abused scripture and treated slaves like dirt.

 

[LightHorseman]

It's the same line of reasoning though, isn't it? 'It's not hurting anyone, so it's fine.' But what we keep saying is that logic can justify almost any offense if enough people go along with it. Conversely, it doesn't matter if we can logically reason why something is a sin if God tells us it is a sin.

I've deduced that homosexual sex is wrong because it defies God's plan for humans, created as man and woman, but that doesn't satisfy everyone's logic. I've been compared to racists who have committed atrocities for claiming that the bible includes homosexual sex as a sin, and the argument is always similar to yours. A lot of people don't see anything wrong with it, but that's looking at it from man's perspective, not God's perspective as we ought to.

Well actually, I have yet to see anything that genuinely isn't hurting anyone, or, at least, isn't causing unreasonable harm to non-consenting 3rd parties, that I would consider "wrong". Can you maybe give me some examples of something that is wrong that doesn't cause unreasonable harm to non-consenting third parties? Then maybe I could see your point.

Consider smoking... I believe there is a heck of a lot more evidence that smoking harms the person doing it, the persons around them and society in general, and it certainly can be said to be "against God's plan for humans" in that whole "body is a temple" way, not to mention it is much more unarguably "unnatural" than homosexuality ever was... yet I don't see anyone claiming smoking is sinful.

Double standard? Special pleading? How do you get around it? My point is that I have never seen a "reason" to condemn homosexuality that doesn't require the condemner to be blatantly hypocritical by ignoring, or even participating in, activities that display precisely the same traits that they are condemning homosexuality for.

 

[LightHorseman]

Kosher?
Does scripture say rape victims should be stoned to death?
What about slavery? Are you asking about slavery in what we know in scripture or how people have abused scripture and treated slaves like dirt.

Kosher... do you follow the dietary laws laid down in the Bible?

Scripture certainly does say rape victims should be stoned to death, specifically, rape victims in a city who aren't heard crying for help (Deut 22.24). Thats "God's Law", do you think we should follow it?

And I see you are about to embark on special pleading... that the slavery mentioned in the Bible isn't REALLY slavery, that all the slave masters therein were kind and loving and all the slaves wanted to be there. Please don't insult my inteligence.

 

[elephunky]

In the words of Francis S. Collins, "Does God have a belly button?" Being made in God's image doesn't mean that we appear like him on the outside, I think it speaks more of having his capacity for love, wisdom, creation - though none of these on quite the same scale. I also think it alludes more to our soul as a special creation of God as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Maybe part of my being created in the image of God is that I just love women, I find them beautiful, and I am drawn to them. This is a good thing, maybe I'm going to end up having several daughters, or counseling women in some way, or simply care for a woman who needs love. A man may find himself drawn to other men the same way I'm drawn to women, and could find himself needed for a role in the kingdom of God that requires that very trait. The attraction itself, seeing the beauty of God's creation, seeking intimacy in purity is not a sin. It's only when we seek these things for our own pleasure that it becomes sinful, when God and others are not considered first in our actions.

Being made in the image of God is being made to love.

You state it like being homosexual is a physical, but its not, being homosexual isnt just about physical attraction. Its abou to whom they give they love - without choice.

Its not like they are actively seeking SEX with the same sex for their own pleasure. Their hearts are drawn to love someone that is of the same sex. Love isnt selfish

I believe God has given them that direction of love for a reason

 

[elephunky]

The key is that we have full control over who we have sex with.
That is by choice.

If a pedophile is sexually attracted to little children, it doesn't mean
he/she has to carry out the attraction/lust.
Similarly, people are attracted to other things that the Bible clearly
says are sin. What do we say for the glutton or drunkard or drug
addict?
A glutton can't help the attraction to food - but they don't have to
overeat. It's something they have to overcome and defeat.

Once again, its not about sex. Its about who they have that special connection with and who they are to love.

Pedophiles arent born sexually perverted, they grow into that due to something happening to them in their lives.

A lot of homosexuals I know have always been that way. They werent traumatised into it.

Also with people who cant help the attraction to food - its about underlaying issues.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Kosher... do you follow the dietary laws laid down in the Bible?

Scripture certainly does say rape victims should be stoned to death, specifically, rape victims in a city who aren't heard crying for help (Deut 22.24). Thats "God's Law", do you think we should follow it?

And I see you are about to embark on special pleading... that the slavery mentioned in the Bible isn't REALLY slavery, that all the slave masters therein were kind and loving and all the slaves wanted to be there. Please don't insult my inteligence.

First, we are not under the Old law, we are under the New Covenant that was established when Christ shed His blood for all of us ungodly people. Therefore I am not required to follow the dietary laws laid down under the old law. If one wants to follow it, great, but it is not binding.

Secondly, continue reading.
Deut. 22:23-24 says
"If a young woman who is a virgin is bethrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you."
This seems consentual, both were having sex outside of marriage. That act was evil against God's eyes and therefore BOTH of them were to be stoned to death.

As opposed to this:

Deut. 22:25-37
But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

Third, God made provisions so that those whom are slaves were to be treated well. We failed miserably. Slavery for a person under the Old law, lasted for 7 years (lifetime if the slaves wanted to stay). In book of Philemon we see Paul urging Onesimus' (a runaway slave) master to receive him back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-a beloved brother..." (Phil 16). But I can say that the way slavers were treated was wrong and it no where resembles what God have asked. No, all the people during those times were not righteous masters, remember the Israelites were slaves (in bondage) to the Egyptians for 400 years and God came to deliver them from the Egyptians and God have asked the Israelites not to treat people they way that the Egyptians have treated them under the old law. But I don't see in New Testament scripture where we are bound to have slaves, so the abolish of slavery was needed especially the way they treated people.

 

[JediMobius]

Scripture certainly does say rape victims should be stoned to death, specifically, rape victims in a city who aren't heard crying for help (Deut 22.24). Thats "God's Law", do you think we should follow it?

What version are you reading? Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

The rape victim is in 22:25, and she is not put to death. The betrothed virgin in 22:24 who doesn't cry for help, who consents to lie with a man unforced was stoned.

Anyway, why is it anyone thinks that recognizing what is sinful based on old covenant law means we should have to follow each and every part of it? We're in the new covenant where we must simply recognize our sinful nature and let God work salvation in us, the old law simply serves to show us that we can't do it. We can't feasibly follow every single biblical law, and that's the point. Jesus could, so we could trust in him.

We don't have to stone a rapist in order to maintain his wrong doing, do we? If we grant him mercy and he repents, does that make his act any less sinful? Is scripture stating how God detests homosexual sex part of the dietary law? Many believe Christ pardoned us from strictly adhering to the dietary laws when speaking to the pharisees.

 

[JediMobius]

Well actually, I have yet to see anything that genuinely isn't hurting anyone, or, at least, isn't causing unreasonable harm to non-consenting 3rd parties, that I would consider "wrong". Can you maybe give me some examples of something that is wrong that doesn't cause unreasonable harm to non-consenting third parties? Then maybe I could see your point.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I've done that, didn't hurt anyone but the consenting party, myself. Many people wouldn't even agree that I did any harm to myself, my old self wouldn't have thought so, but I certainly have caused myself harm this way.

Consider smoking... I believe there is a heck of a lot more evidence that smoking harms the person doing it, the persons around them and society in general, and it certainly can be said to be "against God's plan for humans" in that whole "body is a temple" way, not to mention it is much more unarguably "unnatural" than homosexuality ever was... yet I don't see anyone claiming smoking is sinful.

Few people claim it's a good thing. Where there is little or no opposition, there is little reason to bring up the issue. As for the sinful nature of smoking, would Jesus have smoked? I doubt it, it's unclean, so it's sinful. It falls short of the glory of God.

Double standard? Special pleading? How do you get around it? My point is that I have never seen a "reason" to condemn homosexuality that doesn't require the condemner to be blatantly hypocritical by ignoring, or even participating in, activities that display precisely the same traits that they are condemning homosexuality for.

Who have I condemned that hasn't stood condemned already? We all stand condemned until we accept the gospel. How am I being blatantly hypocritical? Have I claimed that I am without fault? No.

 

[Nadiine]

What version are you reading? Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

The rape victim is in 22:25, and she is not put to death. The betrothed virgin in 22:24 who doesn't cry for help, who consents to lie with a man unforced was stoned.

Anyway, why is it anyone thinks that recognizing what is sinful based on old covenant law means we should have to follow each and every part of it? We're in the new covenant where we must simply recognize our sinful nature and let God work salvation in us, the old law simply serves to show us that we can't do it. We can't feasibly follow every single biblical law, and that's the point. Jesus could, so we could trust in him.

We don't have to stone a rapist in order to maintain his wrong doing, do we? If we grant him mercy and he repents, does that make his act any less sinful? Is scripture stating how God detests homosexual sex part of the dietary law? Many believe Christ pardoned us from strictly adhering to the dietary laws when speaking to the pharisees.

This is their main ploy in trying to discredit the OT law we use
for identifying moral sin.

Even tho several of the same people have been told the hermaneutics
of OT Law (which means we cannot arbitrarily cherry pick which laws we agree with
then reject others we don't - which is moral relativism which seems
to run rampant w/ a few at CF)
they continue to make the same tired arguments as if they can
marginalize & discredit the OT moral system.

Unfortunately by doing that they shoot their own views down
as they uphold to moral cherry picking themselves - plus mix in
the failed & flawed system of relativism which is also problematic
for reasons you list here - like "lust".

But again, the problem is that we don't always SEE harm when
it's done (as if not seeing it means there is none??) - alot of times
we only see the harm much later in hind sight.
That's what happened with me for many years.
Prior to coming back to the Lord and being seriously backslidden
for 13+ yrs, I did nearly everything I wanted and got away with
it... (my sister was often jealous that I got my way).

But when I came back to the Lord and saw how what I had done
those years caused me alot of baggage, pain & regret and then wasted
time (lost time being the biggest kicker of all) -
I NOW see the devestating harm I caused myself. I cannot imagine
how much further I'd be if I didn't live for myself in sin.

Sin ALWAYS harms - if not emotionally, physically. If not physically,
spiritually. Most people ignore the fact that biblically, sin
SEPARATES us from God. How can that not be harmful?:o

When man becomes his own free moral agent, he is solely living in
flawed perception that is prone to justification of evil -
becuz man is inherantly corrupted in the heart and mind thru
original sin

 

[LightHorseman]

First, we are not under the Old law, we are under the New Covenant that was established when Christ shed His blood for all of us ungodly people. Therefore I am not required to follow the dietary laws laid down under the old law. If one wants to follow it, great, but it is not binding.

Great. So stop trying to condemn homosexuals using the OT then.

This seems consentual, both were having sex outside of marriage. That act was evil against God's eyes and therefore BOTH of them were to be stoned to death.

As opposed to this:

It is the definition of consentual... according to the Bible... ANY woman who is found having sex in the city with someone other than her husband, who does not cry out for help, is guilty of adultery, and should be stoned to death. This includes those raped at knife point, and the 12 year olds raped by their step fathers, told its all their fault.

Now, if this seems ridiculous to you, great, I agree. But thats WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS THE LAW. So, if you're going to claim to live by God's law in all things, better get the rocks out to deal with all those child abuse victims in any urban area, huh?

Third, God made provisions so that those whom are slaves were to be treated well. We failed miserably. Slavery for a person under the Old law, lasted for 7 years (lifetime if the slaves wanted to stay). In book of Philemon we see Paul urging Onesimus' (a runaway slave) master to receive him back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-a beloved brother..." (Phil 16). But I can say that the way slavers were treated was wrong and it no where resembles what God have asked. No, all the people during those times were not righteous masters, remember the Israelites were slaves (in bondage) to the Egyptians for 400 years and God came to deliver them from the Egyptians and God have asked the Israelites not to treat people they way that the Egyptians have treated them under the old law. But I don't see in New Testament scripture where we are bound to have slaves, so the abolish of slavery was needed especially the way they treated people.

I think one of us needs to do more research... it is my understanding that the 7 year slavery limit was only under certain circumstances, and indeed the majority of slaves were slaves indefinitely.

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by LightHorseman

Well actually, I have yet to see anything that genuinely isn't hurting anyone, or, at least, isn't causing unreasonable harm
​

Unfortunately, this relays to me that you are viewing things
in a very narrow sense and aren't viewing things in a spiritual
sense as God views them.

Can you "SEE" spiritual damage when it's done to a soul?
No you cannot.
Can you "SEE" into the spirit world and know what a person
gives Satan when they sin?
Can you "SEE" into their emotional state and see years of
scarring that have piled up as they lived in sin/perversions?
Do you "KNOW" God's will for each person's life? Does God
WANT them to sleep with this or that person they willfully
choose to?

You can't see anything past what the person wants to do
and if it's what they want & people consent, it's "GOOD".
So it has to be good/moral Just becuz someone wants to do it?
(ie. your standard of measure for morality - which is relative -
becuz that's YOUR code to decide what is moral and it
has flaws)

I have news, even if something is "moral" or doesn't appear
to be harmful doesn't make it right or good for every single person.

How good is it when women have slept w/ the wrong guy
& he turns out to be a stalker? Or the guy is emotionally
abusive and she doesn't notice how she's being conditioned
by him???
Or they got an STD or pregnant...??

Former homosexuals admit the harm they committed in their
relationships and they sure didn't recognize it until later
on when they were out of the lifestyle.

People WANT to take drugs too - they think they can enjoy
them and master them, only to find out that the drugs
master them later on...
same w/ alcoholics.

The truth is, you are utterly incapable of seeing all the harm
and damage to a person's mind, body or soul.
But since God see's all 3, it makes HIM capable of judging
what is moral and what is immoral and forbidden.

To put yourself in that position of judging sin and righteousness, you've actually taken on God's job.
​

 

[LightHorseman]

What version are you reading? Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

The rape victim is in 22:25, and she is not put to death. The betrothed virgin in 22:24 who doesn't cry for help, who consents to lie with a man unforced was stoned.

My entire point is that according to the Bible, the way to tell if she consented or not is whether she screamed for help or not. As I just said to the prior poster, by the Bible's definition, all women raped at knife point, or those drugged, or otherwise unable to scream, consented.

Anyway, why is it anyone thinks that recognizing what is sinful based on old covenant law means we should have to follow each and every part of it? We're in the new covenant where we must simply recognize our sinful nature and let God work salvation in us, the old law simply serves to show us that we can't do it. We can't feasibly follow every single biblical law, and that's the point. Jesus could, so we could trust in him.

Indeed... so if, as you freely admit, it is wrong to hold people to account by the old laws, how come everyone asked to justify the condemnation of homosexuals invariable drags out Leviticus 22 yet again? My point is this, if you can see the flaw in stoning rape victims to death, even though it was what the Bible literally demands, then maybe you should take a moment before condemning homosexuals "because its what the Bible says."

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I've done that, didn't hurt anyone but the consenting party, myself. Many people wouldn't even agree that I did any harm to myself, my old self wouldn't have thought so, but I certainly have caused myself harm this way.

I see that passage as a warning, because thinking lustful thoughts can lead to lustful acts. It doesn't LITERALLY mean that looking lustfully at a woman is as bad as adultery, otherwise, well, heck, any man who's been outside on a warm summer day is an adulterer.

We don't have to stone a rapist in order to maintain his wrong doing, do we? If we grant him mercy and he repents, does that make his act any less sinful? Is scripture stating how God detests homosexual sex part of the dietary law? Many believe Christ pardoned us from strictly adhering to the dietary laws when speaking to the pharisees.

The Bible never says that. Sure, I believe the dietary laws are no longer binding under the new covenant, but I believe neither is the condemnation of homosexuality. Maybe you can explain to me why Christ released us from observance to the dietary laws, but we are still bound to vilify homosexuals?

Few people claim it's a good thing. Where there is little or no opposition, there is little reason to bring up the issue. As for the sinful nature of smoking, would Jesus have smoked? I doubt it, it's unclean, so it's sinful. It falls short of the glory of God.

So where are all the Christians rabidly condemning smokers and trying to make it illegal for them to get married? There are none, of course. Nor are there thread after thread of over zealous Christians condemning smokers as sinners. Yet there are for homosexuals. Justify the double standard please?

Who have I condemned that hasn't stood condemned already? We all stand condemned until we accept the gospel. How am I being blatantly hypocritical? Have I claimed that I am without fault? No.

Remind me where Jesus said it was his followers place to condemn anybody? I must have missed that bit.

 

[LightHorseman]

To put yourself in that position of judging sin and righteousness, you've actually taken on God's job.

Nadiine... I literally spat tea at my computer when I read you type this... day after day I see you type nothing but condemnation and judgement of others here, you seem to believe its fine for you to judge sin and righteousness. So, you know... I don't want to call you a hypocrit, but, well, I don't know how else to finish that sentence.

 

[Nadiine]

Great. So stop trying to condemn homosexuals using the OT then.

Again you display your inability to grasp OT Law.

Which I believe at this point is willfull. Do you WANT to
understand how the Law works? Or just continue the same
failed arguments for all of us to see your lack of understanding?

The NT AFFIRMS the OT moral law is in tact and is
encased in the Law of Love of Neighbor as self.
Being under the law of love IS BEING UNDER MORAL LAW
from the OT (reiterated again in the NT in generalized lists
1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Eph. 4 & 6, Gal. 5, Rev. 2):

Romans 13:8-10
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.


The moral law is summed up in love of neighbor. Where is the
moral law removed? (ps. these sins listed in this verse are the moral
laws from the OT 10 commandments)

To ignore any of the moral laws in the OT, you are violating
the law of Love to your neighbor. It is SIN.
And are you aware that the 2 laws of love are
FROM THE OT LAW?

How can you say we aren't under moral laws of the OT as if it's gone
yet the 2 greatest laws Jesus puts us under are FROM IT???

 

[LightHorseman]

Nadiine, all it would take for you to convince me that homosexuality is wrong, is for you to explain, clearly and specifically, without engaging in special pleading or hypocricy, how homosexuality is contrary to the "love thy neighbour" command.