Is homosexuality a sin?

[RobertMerton]

OK, so, in what possible way would being homosexual distance us from a relationship with God?

Oh, and I sincerely appreciate being spared the Adam and steve bit *rolls eyes* is that the tiredest PRATT out there or what?

God created man and woman for each other. The result of their love or sexual union results in children. Anything else is an abomination from the natural order that God established.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."




God doesn't hate the homosexual, but hates the act like all sin's that are commited. So if a homosexual is complaining about being hated by God; know that God hasn't forsaken anyone.
First off in Leviticus 18 God describes to Moses what the children of Isreal should not do. He list off the things which are an abomination to their bodies. In verse 22 it is written, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." By using the word 'abomination' God is saying that it is disgusting.
But God does point out that he hates six things.
In Proverbs 6:16-19 it is written, "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Notice that homosexuality does not make this list. In fact, the Bible nowhere directly states that God hates homosexuals or homosexuality.
So why do so many christains hate the Homosexual or have the perspective to do so?
It is because of a group called "God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" A group of people that go into a gay persons funeral to shout that they are burnning in hell for being a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], and on the website they post how long a gay person has been in hell. This is a bias group that has given the wrong impressions on us Christains.
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Homosexuality is described as an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 teaches explicitly that homosexuality is a result of a continual rebellion against God. When a person continues in disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over,” God allows them to experience their sinful desires and the resulting consequences. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. It is a perversion of the "natural order" and more importantly, God's view of sex. But it isn't just homosexuality that won't inheriet the kingdom of God. There is a whole list in Corinthians 6:9-10. But my God is a loving God and will easily forgive.
Does God hate homosexuals? No. Does God approve of homosexuality? Absolutely not. Can a person truly be a Christian and at the same time a practicing homosexual? No (1 Corinthians 6:9). Ephesians 4:15 instructs us to "speak the truth...in love." 1 Peter 3:15 teaches us to proclaim the truth, but to do so with "gentleness and respect."

also, the family unit ie.. marriage, is modeled after the church

 

[RobertMerton]

would it be too presumptuous to assume that you are a homosexual?

also, what're you doing up?
it's like 3:14am in syd

 

[Jase]

I did not say that the earth rotated on magnets, I said that the earth rotates based on the same principal. The inner core of the earth rotates, creating magnetic north and south poles. These poles react with the magnetic forces from surrounding stars and planets to make the earth spin. Look it up.
_________________

Perhaps you should look it up yourself. Magnetic forces don't cause the Earth's rotation, and aside from the sun, the nearest star is very far away. Hardly close enough to have any impact on Earth.

The Earth rotates due the physical law of conservation of angular momentum. As mass was pulled into the center of the Earth, its angular velocity increased. In the same way a figure skater, pulling their arms close to their body will cause them to spin faster.

 

[Jase]

also, the family unit ie.. marriage, is modeled after the church

No it isn't. Marriage existed before the Church.

 

[I-can-see]

*LOL*

Too funny. Poe's, right?

You have nothing to disprove my argument, so you resort to insult. That is a third grade tactic. A children do such things when arguing with those who have superior intellect.

 

[Jase]

You have nothing to disprove my argument, so you resort to insult. That is a third grade tactic. A children do such things when arguing with those who have superior intellect.

Um, the fact that you don't understand why the Earth rotates is proof enough me thinks.

 

[I-can-see]

The Earth rotates due the physical law of conservation of angular momentum. As mass was pulled into the center of the Earth, it's angular velocity increased. In the same way a figure skater, pulling their arms close to their body will cause them to spin faster.

Maybe you should look it up yourself. What you have quoted is nothing more then a theory. As for angular momentum, scientist also have theories as to what caused it in the first place. Magnetic forces is one of those theories. My argument is just as valid as yours in the scientific community. Go ask your teacher.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

also, the family unit ie.. marriage, is modeled after the church

As has been said... marriage existed before the church... it also exists widely in non Christian cultures.

Sorry, I've never bought this line of argument. I think its one of those things that sort of sounds meningful but actually doesn't really mean much at all.

Yes, I am homosexual, says right in my sigline... but I'm in Qld, so its only 0220 here (no daylight saving) but I am heading for bed soon. Was waiting for a download to finish, but its done now.

 

[RobertMerton]

As has been said... marriage existed before the church... it also exists widely in non Christian cultures.

Sorry, I've never bought this line of argument. I think its one of those things that sort of sounds meningful but actually doesn't really mean much at all.

Yes, I am homosexual, says right in my sigline... but I'm in Qld, so its only 0220 here (no daylight saving) but I am heading for bed soon. Was waiting for a download to finish, but its done now.

not marriage as the legal institution as we know it today,
but that's besides the point.

i'm going to have to revert to the 'adam and eve'.

adam was lonely, so God created eve.
do you deny this?



Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

 

[RobertMerton]

you might be interested in Sy Rogers.

he's an ex-gay pastor

Sy Rogers Communications

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Maybe you should look it up yourself. What you have quoted is nothing more then a theory. As for angular momentum, scientist also have theories as to what caused it in the first place. Magnetic forces is one of those theories. My argument is just as valid as yours in the scientific community. Go ask your teacher.

No really, who is this? AirPo? Cabal? It can't really be real, right?

But on the off chance that it is... could you maybe supply a link to a single credible physics or astronomy site that explains how magnetism generated by the pole's interactions with other stars and planets causes the Earth's rotation? I'd be really interested to see it, but apparently I'm just to stupid to find it myself.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

not marriage as the legal institution as we know it today,

Afraid I'm going to have to stop you there with a great big ol' [citation needed] and ask you to explain that one some more.

but that's besides the point.

i'm going to have to revert to the 'adam and eve'.

adam was lonely, so God created eve.
do you deny this?

Um... well yeah, actually. Adam and Eve weren't real, literal people. The entire Eden story is a metaphor for humans settling from the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle (in the Garden) to the settled pastoral/agricultural lifestyle (living by the sweat of the brow).

You don't really need to quote huge chunks of Genesis at me, I've read it.

And even if (BIG if) we were to take Genesis completely literally, theres nothing in it to suggest that homosexuality is wrong, because it isn't mentioned. Genesis, being about fertility and population is OF COURSE going to talk about men and women. That doesn't mean that men and men or women and women is wrong by default.

Heck, I'll go ya one better... if Adam and Eve is natural because Adam by himself was lonely... doesn't that rather mean that celibacy is directly against God's plans? You get to be the one to explain THAT to Paul of Tarsus.

 

[RobertMerton]

Heck, I'll go ya one better... if Adam and Eve is natural because Adam by himself was lonely... doesn't that rather mean that celibacy is directly against God's plans? You get to be the one to explain THAT to Paul of Tarsus.

interesting question


1 Corinthians 7.


as for your questions,
yes , we gather from leviticus, and all those other verses i referred to earleir

 

[EnemyPartyII]

interesting question


1 Corinthians 7.


as for your questions,
yes , we gather from leviticus, and all those other verses i referred to earleir

Right. All that celibacy doesn't really fit well with an argument that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the "Adam and Eve" paradigm.

Also might point out here that, if the Adam and eve paradigm were the ONLY acceptible form of family set up, then technically shouldn't we all be marrying our sibblings?

Sorry, what's Leviticus got to do with anything here?

Like I said, its late, so I'm going to go in a minute, but let me leave you with some things to think about...

first of all, the translations of THAT passage in Leviticus is HOTLY debated... whether "homosexual" is really an appropriate translation of what is meant by "man bedders" is very much debateable. But even if (another BIG if) for the sake of argument, we agree that Leviticus absolutely intended to be a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality... the next obvious question is... so what? I bet I can name Levitical laws that you are breaking right this very second. I KNOW I can name a few that you've broken in the past week. So under the new covenant, Christians are no longer bound by blind Levitical legalism, and thank God for that! So, my question to you is, why is it, out of the literally HUNDREDS of OT laws that we blithely ignore today, why is it that the one about homosexuality is the one that we have to keep recognising and sticking to? Does that make any sense to you?

Or does the fact that the condemnation of homosexuality is something that doesn't effect everyone, and so those who AREN'T homosexual like to be able to thunder on about it without having to worry about breaking it, whereas to condemn people for eating shellfish, or wearing mixed fibres, or for having relations with a woman within a week of her period, or not stoning disobedient children to death, or any of the myriad others, might strike a bit to close to home? Just have a think about it.

I sincerely hope we can resume this friendly, respectful discussion tommorrow. Until next time, peace.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I-Can-See just very kindly posted me this link science.jrank.org/pages/2222/Earth-s-Rotation.html Lets see what it says?

All objects in the universe and our solar system move in space. The earth moves in two ways. It rotates like a top on its axis, an imaginary line through the north and , and revolves in an orbit around the Sun. Centrifugal force results from the earth's rotation; without , centrifugal force could cause objects to fly into space. Because the force of the earth's gravity is 289 times stronger than its centrifugal force, gravity prevents objects from leaving the surface. Centrifugal force causes the earth to bulge at the equator, making it slightly ovoid in shape.
The earth's counterclockwise rotation is in the opposite direction of the apparent movement of heavenly bodies. Thus, although the Sun and stars appear to move from east to west, the earth rotates from west to east.
The rotation of Earth can be proven in several ways. One is the Foucault . This was first conducted in 1851, by the Frenchman Léon Foucault. He suspended a heavy iron ball from a 200 ft (61 m) wire, creating a pendulum, from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. He put sand underneath the pendulum, and placed a pin on the bottom of the ball, so it would leave a mark on its swing from side to side. On each swing, over the course of 24 hours, the mark in the sand would move to the right. The direction in the path showed movement of the earth against the swing of the pendulum.
A more modern proof of the rotation is shown by the orbits of artificial. A satellite is launched from the Kennedy Space Center at a 30 degree angle to an orbit 100 mi (161 km) above Earth. Its orbit stays at approximately the same plane in space. If Earth did not rotate, the satellite would pass over each time it completed an orbit, but it does not. As it completes the first orbit, it flies over Alabama and over Louisiana on the third. Each time the satellite passes over locations in the United States, it is 1,000 mi (1,609 km) farther to the west. Tracking stations have made this observation with hundreds of satellites.
Another way of proving rotation is through the prevailing winds. In the northern hemisphere, they move in a counter clockwise direction, while in the southern hemisphere, they blow clockwise.
The inner core of Earth rotates faster than the crust. Earth is made up of an inner core, an outer core, the and the crust. The inner core, a solid mass of iron about 1,500 mi (2,400 km) in diameter, is suspended in the molten metal of the outer core, which is about 1,400 mi (2,240 km) thick. The mantle of the earth is a layer of mostly solid material about 1,700 mi (2,720 km) thick; the crust itself varies from 4 to 25 mi (6 to 40 km) thick. Although the inner core spins in the same direction as Earth's crust, the inner core rotates at a different speed. Scientists estimate that the inner core of Earth spins from one to three degrees a year faster than the crust of Earth. This means that while a point on the crust of Earth moves 360° in a year, a similar point on the inner core would move 361-363° in a year. Thus, over approximately 360 years, the inner core would make one complete rotation more than the crust of Earth.
Generally when we speak of Earth's rotation, we are talking about the rotation of the surface. This rotation is used to define time. Since people began to measure time, it's been done by the movement of Sun and stars. One rotation of Earth makes up one 24 hour day. This is in contrast to the time of revolution around the Sun of 365 days, or one year. Because the earth's axis is not perpendicular to the equator, but leans at a 23.5° angle, the amount of daylight varies over the course of a year.​

Read more: Earth's Rotation Earth's Rotation​

I must be having a blonde moment... can anyone else see anything in there about the rotation of the Earth being caused by the magnetic poles interacting with the stars and planets? [/color]​

*whispers* I-Can-See... maybe you should have a look at THIS site instead... The Rotation of The Earth - Geography For Kids - By KidsGeo.com​

 

[I-can-see]

Actually my first source was Wiki. But it is so much to read, I decided not to post that link. So I went to one of the links Wiki referenced.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actually my first source was Wiki. But it is so much to read, I decided not to post that link. So I went to one of the links Wiki referenced.

Just an idea... maybe you should actually read the whole thing?

Because it doesn't actually say what you think it says.

Which... if I may... is, I suspect, rather the problem with many of the people who think the Bible condemns homosexuality... they're so determined about what is right and wrong that they read only bits of it and don't quite understand the whole message, but rather garble bits and pieces of it together.

 

[RobertMerton]

Right. All that celibacy doesn't really fit well with an argument that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the "Adam and Eve" paradigm.

Also might point out here that, if the Adam and eve paradigm were the ONLY acceptible form of family set up, then technically shouldn't we all be marrying our sibblings?

Sorry, what's Leviticus got to do with anything here?

Like I said, its late, so I'm going to go in a minute, but let me leave you with some things to think about...

first of all, the translations of THAT passage in Leviticus is HOTLY debated... whether "homosexual" is really an appropriate translation of what is meant by "man bedders" is very much debateable. But even if (another BIG if) for the sake of argument, we agree that Leviticus absolutely intended to be a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality... the next obvious question is... so what? I bet I can name Levitical laws that you are breaking right this very second. I KNOW I can name a few that you've broken in the past week. So under the new covenant, Christians are no longer bound by blind Levitical legalism, and thank God for that! So, my question to you is, why is it, out of the literally HUNDREDS of OT laws that we blithely ignore today, why is it that the one about homosexuality is the one that we have to keep recognising and sticking to? Does that make any sense to you?

Or does the fact that the condemnation of homosexuality is something that doesn't effect everyone, and so those who AREN'T homosexual like to be able to thunder on about it without having to worry about breaking it, whereas to condemn people for eating shellfish, or wearing mixed fibres, or for having relations with a woman within a week of her period, or not stoning disobedient children to death, or any of the myriad others, might strike a bit to close to home? Just have a think about it.

I sincerely hope we can resume this friendly, respectful discussion tommorrow. Until next time, peace.

you certainly do raise some interesting points, and i can at the least, sympathize with you on that aspect.

I suppose they really do 'stick' to homosexuality because Jesus never mentioned it. Jesus mentioned adulterey, discplining a child is mentioned in the new testament (i think by Paul), and so forth.

another thing is that the sin of homosexuality is probably the most.. obvious.

now when i say that i don't mean that we can generalize, assume and say 'hey look he's a homosexual', i mean that it is a huge part of life, sexual orientation probably incurring one of the most changes in a persons life.


now i don't mean to be disrespectful when i ask this, and i don't want to assume the 'oh, .. your parents must of been divorced / emotionally absent/distant'

but do you believe you were born a homosexual?

 

[I-can-see]

Just an idea... maybe you should actually read the whole thing?

Because it doesn't actually say what you think it says.

Mhm, my mistake. However my argument still stands. You have yet to debunk it.

 

[Macrina]

I just wanted to chime in here and say that I think the whole "ex-gay" issue is a red herring.

Christians who argue against homosexuality (to use broad terminology) generally do so while distinguishing between "orientation" and "behavior." Homosexual orientation is seen as an inclination/predisposition towards one particular form of sin, and same-gender sex is seen as that sin. The orientation itself is no more sinful than the desire to drink too much or any other sinful impulse. It is acting on that orientation (same-gender sex) which is the sin.

Now, if we stop thinking of homosexuality as in a different class from every other sin, then we'll realize that we shouldn't expect God always to remove temptation from every person. Alcoholics may live sober lives, but still possess the "orientation" that inclines them to the sinful behavior. We don't say that the rightness or wrongness of drunkenness has anything to do with whether or not the person is inclined to do it: It's not right just because the inclination can't change. That's a tangential point.

In my personal acquaintance, I know one person who claims to be "ex-gay." I have no reason to doubt his story, and as far as an outsider can tell, his marriage and family seem to be quite happy and healthy. However, I know many more people who would like to have God change their sexual orientation, but who have not been granted that. To ask them "why can you not be like so-and-so over there" would be cruelly unfair to them.

In the end, people who are homosexual (by orientation) don't get any more choice about their feelings than an alcoholic gets about wanting to take a drink. In either case, the person might experience a miraculous release from temptation, but it's unfair to expect everyone else to be one of these exceptions. In general, when someone tries not to act on his/her orientation (not engage in same-gender sex), he/she must struggle with that much like the "one day at a time" approach taken by alcoholics. For most people, there is no dramatic change. Of the Christians I know who are homosexually oriented but believe same-gender sex to be a sin, all but the one I mentioned earlier have resigned themselves to living celibate lives.

Whether or not same-gender sex is a sin does not rely on the ability for orientation itself to change. The "ex-gay" argument follows a logic which implies that other sins are only wrong if the inclination towards them may be removed; as we all know, there are some things that are wrong whether or not the inclination may be changed. So arguing about whether or not sexual orientation may change is a red herring.