Is homosexuality a sin?

[lordworshipper]

If God went through the trouble to make you the way you are why would he be inclined to change you?

Why would God be inclined to make me in a way that would be torture for me to be because he made me have desires I can't act on?

 

[Jase]

If God went through the trouble to make you the way you are why would he be inclined to change you?

He wouldn't, which begs the question, how can God punish someone for something he made them with?

 

[Autumnleaf]

He wouldn't, which begs the question, how can God punish someone for something he made them with?

St. Paul was afflicted with one illness or another. He wrote about it. Not once, that I can recall, did he ask for it to be lifted. God never promised us a rose garden. People are born into or otherwise afflicted with all manner of crosses to bear.

 

[Zaac]

Why would God be inclined to make me in a way that would be torture for me to be because he made me have desires I can't act on?

People are born without legs, arms, and eyes. People get AIDS, cancer and Parkinson's disease.

God allows what He allows to His glory. As was said before, if you are willing to lay even that down and fully follow Christ, what a testimony!

 

[JediMobius]

That's a cop-out. The scriptures as you know them were put together by a council of men, not god. They voted on which texts to include and exclude.

Most of the texts included in the canon (if not all) were simply those already in use by the church. Development of the Christian Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church."

So which denomination is right? Which one has the holy spirit?

You miss the point. Denominationalism itself is not right.

1Cr 1:10 NKJV - Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you, but [that] you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Sexual orientation, for most people, is not a choice. Period.



Women were personal property in biblical times. There's no disputing that.

I'm taking this as there's no disputing you.

 

[JediMobius]

Nowhere does the Bible say that attraction to the same sex is a sin. Trust me, I read the Bible everyday, read it many times over, and am still doing such. What the Bible says is that not homosexuality (attraction to the same sex), but homosexual intercourse is a sin/abomination to he lord.

Trust me, God wouldn't punish us for something we have no control over. He knows we have temptations, we're fallen creatures.

Btw, there is a difference between sexuality and sex, the difference is one is sexual attraction and the other sexual acts. I am willing to be proven wrong, all you need is one verse saying I am. God doesn't like the sins people do, he don't punish us for what the devil puts in our minds, nor what falls into our minds elsewise, as long as we fight off sin, that's all that matters.

I'd like to agree with you, but isn't sexual attraction rooted in sexuality? I'd like to point out that when Jesus said "if you look upon a woman with lust you are committing adultery with her in your heart" it pretty much shows sin starts in the thought, not the action. I'm not convinced that God would refrain from punishing a sin just because it wasn't acted out. (Not that we who are under grace have to worry about punishment from God at all.)

 

[JediMobius]

If I'm adding my own bias to the interpretation then indeed I wouldn't be the first now, would I? Throughout history Scripture has been read through a biased lens, and has as such been used to derive meaning that was never there to begin with.

What does it matter whether or not you're the first? What's your point?

Ah, I see... so all those denominations are the direct result of misinterpretation, but your denomination is the consequence of correct interpretation? All denominations make that claim!

I'm not part of any denomination. Christ is not divided, and I am in Christ, unified with all true believers whether non-denom, Catholic, Pentecostal. . .

Do you think it's impossible to understand the intended meaning of scripture?

Then I press on you, as an experiment, to choose (for a moment) to be attracted to the same sex. Try it and see how long you last.

Even if I did, it would prove nothing. What would prevent the claim that I'm just faking it? All it would take is to reinforce the choice, somewhat like acquiring a taste for something initially disliked.

As I said, it depends on the verse, and the acceptable interpretation (within context) of that verse. For the author need not encode a prejudice for the reader to decode a prejudice. Take for example some of Paul's letters in which he advises women to be silent in Church gatherings. Without context it is not difficult for a reader to assume that Paul is speaking with prejudice in his heart. And indeed that is the problem with a literal interpretation of Scripture (it under-emphasises historical, cultural and situational context).

It under-emphasizes? No, people who study fail to learn such context of their own fault. Commentators have included historical, cultural, and situational context in their notes for centuries.

Let's look at the definition of literal one more time.

literal


1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.

3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.

4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.










I'm not advocating 1 unless you're fluent in Hebrew and, or at least, Greek (since the Septuagint is in Greek). Now, through the Holy Spirit, following the words of the original very closely and interpreting true to fact are simply accomplished, especially with the help of commentators and other resources, like Strong's which shows the Hebrew or Greek definition of each word. So, when I think or say literal interpretation, I think and mean 'following very closely, true to fact, and without inaccuracy.'

By the way, am I supposed to find an example of prejudice in the bible for you? The example provided is of a certain passage which is easy to interpret as being with prejudice, but only if context is ignored/forgotten, and no inquiry into the cultural and historical facts of the situation are made.

 

[OllieFranz]

Do you think it's impossible to understand the intended meaning of scripture?

No, but it is unlikely that you are the only one to get everything perfect, especially in light of the fact that the apostle Paul himself was not always sure that the advice he was giving was the inspired word of God (see 1 Corinthians 7:6), and he tells us that there will be times that different Christian brothers will understand some commands and rituals differently. When they do, he says, it may be that both are right -- for themselves. But even if they are not both right, we should not cause the other to stumble and doubt his faith, but leave it to Jesus. Each of us is answerable to Him, not to any other man. (see Romans 14)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What does it matter whether or not you're the first? What's your point?

That when it comes to Scripture... we're all, for the most part, biased here and there.

I'm not part of any denomination. Christ is not divided, and I am in Christ, unified with all true believers whether non-denom, Catholic, Pentecostal. . .

Do you think it's impossible to understand the intended meaning of scripture?

Impossible, yes, if you look only to apparent meaning. That's why context - historical, cultural and otherwise - is important.

Even if I did, it would prove nothing. What would prevent the claim that I'm just faking it? All it would take is to reinforce the choice, somewhat like acquiring a taste for something initially disliked.

See... you can't do it, can you? You can't force yourself to choose to become attracted to men when you simply are not.

I'm not advocating 1 unless you're fluent in Hebrew and, or at least, Greek (since the Septuagint is in Greek). Now, through the Holy Spirit, following the words of the original very closely and interpreting true to fact are simply accomplished, especially with the help of commentators and other resources, like Strong's which shows the Hebrew or Greek definition of each word. So, when I think or say literal interpretation, I think and mean 'following very closely, true to fact, and without inaccuracy.'

Well, then we appear to part way at the meaning of 'biblical literalism', but none-the-less I'm glad that you will not look to apparent meaning alone, and that you intend to inspect deeper than that.

I happen to believe that 'inspecting deeper' also involves looking at the author's motivation for writing. Once we see the motivation we can see that an author's account, while explanatory, is not always factual. Hence, by understanding the motivation underpinning the telling and writing of Genesis I and II, we can see how it held explanatory power in the context of the time in which it was written. Today, in a different context, is looses that explanatory power, and ceases to be an effective model of the cosmos.

By the way, am I supposed to find an example of prejudice in the bible for you? The example provided is of a certain passage which is easy to interpret as being with prejudice, but only if context is ignored/forgotten, and no inquiry into the cultural and historical facts of the situation are made.

Exactly my point. But some Biblical literalists are content to look only at the apparent meaning of Paul's writings, without the context. That is what I mean by 'biblical literalism' - reading the text, as it is, without understanding the motivations behind it.

 

[David Brider]

Then I press on you, as an experiment, to choose (for a moment) to be attracted to the same sex.

Even if I did, it would prove nothing.

It would prove that sexual orientation is a choice.

David.

 

[Jay217]

If God went through the trouble to make you the way you are why would he be inclined to change you?

God has given all of us burdens to bear, He is not inclined on us to change that but to bear it and ask for help by Jesus Christ.

If you are training to do something, example - Sprinting, You are set to beat the time, You try but do not beat that time. Does that mean that your coach wants you change and not be a sprinter? Or does it mean that you should persist with your burden and train and work harder.

God took Job's sons away and diseased him does that mean he's inclined to stop him? or did he want to prove Job's resolve?

We all have problems whether its Celebricy, Homosexuality, Depression, or a Physical Illness. We are created to bear these burdens and live under Jesus Christ, Show our resolve with our faith so we may enter the kingdom of heaven.

Faith and Good Works my friend.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Or conversely, if Scripture contradicts reason then it is perhaps our interpretation that is at fault.

that all depends on what your presupposition of reason is. Your view and construct of what you think reason is is dependent on many eternal elements and presuppositions.

this world is not run by reason and has no concept of it. One persons reason is another persons insanity. That is why divine law is so important. It is impossible for scripture to contradict reason. If you think it does then what you view as 'reason' isn't truly true reason but simply a construct of what you think it is.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

But what of the testimony of Christian gays that have struggled for years, remaining celibate, laying their concerns at Jesus' feet and yet nothing has changed?

Paul understood that the sex drive was, itself, not a mere temptation, but something stronger, and that if one does not have the gift that was given to him to withstand it, one would either give in to improper temptations or burn, unless the passions were satisfied in an acceptable way (that is, through marriage). (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)

Are you willing to put your life where your mouth is and declare that you will, from today onward, live a celibate life? None of the celibates that I know insist that another must choose that lifestyle, but I know too many people who enjoy married sex, but insist on denying other men that which they indulge themselves in.

St. Paul was talking about marriage. He would never ever justify gay unions as a way to solve the passion problem. Secondly homosexuality is more a issue of lust, than it is of passion.

Lastly there are some things in this world that we have to bear patiently with fortitude, temperance, diligence, and chastity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

that all depends on what your presupposition of reason is. Your view and construct of what you think reason is is dependent on many eternal elements and presuppositions.

this world is not run by reason and has no concept of it. One persons reason is another persons insanity. That is why divine law is so important. It is impossible for scripture to contradict reason. If you think it does then what you view as 'reason' isn't truly true reason but simply a construct of what you think it is.

My view of Reason is congruent with that of Hume: Reason is a slave, not master, of the passions, and can be used only as a means of telling us how to obtain various desires. On its own, Reason has no power.

Now, there are instances in which the use of Reason has obtained results that do, in fact, contradict what Scripture tells us. Case in point, Genesis. Through the rigorous use of Reason, the data ascertained does not correspond with the model of the cosmos as given in Genesis, and so we must no longer consider that model a serious explanation. It was our literal (and factual) interpretation of Genesis that was wrong, not our use of Reason to find answers.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

My view of Reason is congruent with that of Hume: Reason is a slave, not master, of the passions, and can be used only as a means of telling us how to obtain various desires. On its own, Reason has no power.

Now, there are instances in which the use of Reason has obtained results that do, in fact, contradict what Scripture tells us. Case in point, Genesis. Through the rigorous use of Reason, the data ascertained does not correspond with the model of the cosmos as given in Genesis, and so we must no longer consider that model a serious explanation. It was our literal (and factual) interpretation of Genesis that was wrong, not our use of Reason to find answers.

Genesis is not a science book and should not be used or viewed as such.

Lastly if reason is a slave of the passions how do you explain killers who have passions to kill and torture people. Many people obstain desires through the destruction and hurting of other people and things. How does this coincide with your assertion?

 

[serephim01]

So basically what you all are saying is... it is a choice but God made us who we are, some predetermined for Hell so we are in fact not created equally? Also LOL @the "its more to do with lust than passion"

I surely wish it was a choice so I didn't have to deal with the drama I deal with. My god if it was a choice that would be amazing would it not? Lol at the people who say it's a choice but don't deal with it themselves. It's like a janitor giving advice on how to build a rocket. Your experience on the choice thing means dip if you aren't actually gay yourself. However I would have said prove it's a choice by trying to be attracted to the same sex if someone hadn't beat me to it

So god made us this way eh? So that means it's ok? Good to know. Because I fully embrace who I am at this point. Does it make me bad? Nope just different. Granted I am interested in both sexes, it does not mean I'm going to lay with everyone I see. Meh this thread deserves the facepalm image of failure.

 

[Blackmarch]

I don't see how it can be with all the openly homosexual church leaders we seem to have these days.

they are not my leaders neither are they my God. Nor is christianity one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lastly if reason is a slave of the passions how do you explain killers who have passions to kill and torture people. Many people obstain desires through the destruction and hurting of other people and things. How does this coincide with your assertion?

Well, it doesn't contradict my assertion if that's what your suggesting.

 

[selfinflikted]

I have this question for you selfinflicted. you believe that sexuality is not a choice. I then ask you how is your sexual attraction generated? Genetics? If it's genetics. then if all gays became open with their ideal and after their generation and the generation after die out. so would there be no homosexuals left in the world? because surely all of the Gay Genes have died out with them as its impossible for homosexuals to naturally have children.

I do not claim to know how human sexuality is "generated." What I can tell you, however, is that it is not a choice. Also, your "gay gene" theory shows a gross misunderstanding of genetics.

Comparison of Homosexuality to Bestiality. there is actrually alot in common. What is the difference if its another person of the same sex or an animal? isn't it just an act of pleasure? i say that because it is impossible to have reproduction with the same sex or an animal so that rules out the breeding part of sexuality. And the argument that the human is 'consenting' if there is an animal and its humping another human or wants to be would it not also be consenting?

Homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing, and it's extremely offensive to suggest so.

Nope. He'd be better off submitting himself to Christ and casting his cares upon Him.

Yes it's easier said than done. But that is the process when dealing with sin. It must be given to God. A ot of times we say that we have given it to God, but we don't listen whn He tries to keep us from the same patterns that got us hooked into a stronghold in the first place.

Strongholds are only gonna be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That simply speaks to the issue not really being brought to God. God will give you victory if the heart's desire is victory.

But a lot of folks say they want victory while secretly holding on to the very thing they say they want victory from.

Yes. If we *really* asked god to make us heterosexual he would. Baloney. I tried that for years, and nothing happened. You can say that we secretly didn't want to change, didn't pray hard enough, or whatever else.. but I can tell you right here and now that you're wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

Most of the texts included in the canon (if not all) were simply those already in use by the church. Development of the Christian Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church."

The fact remains that texts were included or excluded based on vote. I just can't see how some folks honestly put so much stock in what the bible says.

You miss the point. Denominationalism itself is not right.

You dodged the question: Which denomination is right? Which one has guidance from the "holy spirit"? Surely one of them must have it right?

I'm taking this as there's no disputing you.

Nope. It's not me you'd be disputing, it would be reality. "Me" has nothing to do with it.