Nickelodeon/homosexuality Controversy Heats Up!

[seebs]

Originally posted by Badfish
seebs: I am not condemning, I am simply stating my children will know that its wrong, immoral, and sinful. I hold no hatred or judgement towards homosexuals.

They want us to believe their immoral and sinful lifestyle is ok and that they are born gay or that is an acceptable alternative. I know you know what I'm saying, because it does make sense, right?

What "immoral and sinful lifestyle" is this? Taking holy vows? Studying to be a minister? Working at a newspaper, and putting in long hours trying to make sure the paper is free from typos?

Here's the thing: Fifty years ago, good Christians raised their kids to know that interracial marriage was wrong, immoral, and sinful. A hundred and fifty years ago, they raised their kids to know that trying to free slaves was wrong, immoral, and sinful.

How many suicides would you be willing to have your children cause, as they tell people that the physical qualities their bodies were born with are "wrong, immoral, and sinful"? How *SURE* are you that what you're talking about is God's eternal and infinitely loving Word, not, say, a misunderstanding or a cultural phenomenon? Christianity, as a whole, has been *DISASTEROUSLY* wrong on moral issues before... So, you owe it to yourself to be *very* careful before you describe something as "wrong, immoral, and sinful". Who's being hurt? Who's not being loved? Can you, without *ASSUMING* your conclusion, show me who is inherently being rejected or unloved when two people who happen to be of the same sex fall in love and commit to a lifelong relationship? I can show you who's being rejected and unloved when you tell people that their body's inherent qualities are "immoral, wrong, and sinful".

What you're saying does not, in fact, make any sense. It implies that people are *choosing* a condition which can be detected in them long before the question has even been considered, and which, in general, causes them untold misery. This is a silly conclusion, and makes no sense at all.

 

[ThienAn]

Originally posted by seebs
It is laid upon my heart that there is neither male nor female in Christ.

You would be right about this if you're just talking purely spiritual. But physically, there are a male and female.

If/when I have kids, I'll be teaching them that God doesn't make mistakes, and that if He made a few gay people, then He had His reasons.

God doesn't make mistake, people do. And don't even start thinking that people are homosexual because God made them that way. If this is biblical, please enlighten us and tell us where you found this to be true in the bible.

As for me, the bible says it's a sin. And God does not tempt any man or cause any man to sin. Therefore, it leads me to believe that God would not create anyone to be a homosexual when God says it's a sin.

 

[OldBadfish]

What you're saying does not, in fact, make any sense. It implies that people are *choosing* a condition which can be detected in them long before the question has even been considered, and which, in general, causes them untold misery. This is a silly conclusion, and makes no sense at all.

So your implying it is genetic. You talk to me as if I am not making sense! And I don't like that, we have made it clear we are talking about homosexuality. You are talking to me as if I believe it is genetic! I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS GENETIC!! That is my opinion.

You are certain it is genetic, what proof do you have to make these claims?

I am making more sense than you now because I have the Holy Bible which CLEARLY backs my stance on what God views as an abomination! And furthermore if one knows the bible it is clear that sexual immorality is a SIN.

What is your point? Are you arguing with the bible?

Thats what is wrong with this discussion, you want to dissect the debate and imply the bible is wrong and are also implying that homosexuality is genetic.

It is pretty simple, the bible says that this act is immoral and that is all I need to know, the bible doesn't say that there will be exceptions and that some will unfortunately be born with a genetic disorder causing them to be homosexuals.

I am not going to make a difference anyway, the morality of the human race is fallen, and looks like it will continue in that direction until Jesus returns.

 

[seebs]

I am not *totally* certain that it's genetic - rather, I believe that it is, because:

1. Siblings of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual, no matter who raises them.
2. Adoptive children of homosexuals are not more likely to be homosexual.

These combine to suggest genetics.

I am not arguing that "the Bible is wrong" - I am arguing that it could be wrong, or you could be misunderstanding it.

Fifty years ago, firm believers who wanted to do God's will said that the Bible made it clear that interracial marriages were wrong, and that the world was going downhill when people allowed them.

I have read hundreds of pages of exegesis and study on this issue, and I find that, on the whole, the Bible's discussion of homosexual sex is very much subject to debate about exactly what it was talking about. Never once are we told anything about homosexuality except in ritual contexts; it's always presented in a context to do with customs and rituals.

There's a long thread on this over in General Apologetics. If you want to read a good summary of the issues, John Burgeson's web page has one, or you could look at one of the ministers whom God led to clearer understanding:

http://www.reluctantjourney.co.uk/

In the end, I will argue with what people tell me about the Bible before I'll argue with what God tells me. He tells me these people are His children, too, and we should get out of their faces.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ThienAn

God doesn't make mistake, people do. And don't even start thinking that people are homosexual because God made them that way. If this is biblical, please enlighten us and tell us where you found this to be true in the bible.

Matthew 19:11-12 talks about "eunuchs", but the word used was used to refer to people who could procreate, but had no *desire* to, back when it was written.

The Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is a sin. It says something that you choose to interpret that way, and which other people choose to interpret other ways. Once again, *PLEASE STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME*. GO READ THE THREAD.

There have been a couple *HUNDRED* articles discussing the various issues of Biblical interpretation here, and if you haven't read them, you're wasting everyone's time going over old ground.

 

[Mandy]

God very plainly said that homosexuality is an abomination, one of the very few sins to be called such.

these words.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

There are more verses to show that God has said that homosexuality is sin.

 

[OldBadfish]

In the end, I will argue with what people tell me about the Bible before I'll argue with what God tells me. He tells me these people are His children, too, and we should get out of their faces.

I agree seebs! I myself am an advocate of free thought! I am not saying that we(humans) pass any judgement, they are our brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean I should condone or teach my children that is right.

And yes seebs there are many passages in the bible that clearly state homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Mandy]

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also 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.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[seebs]

Gosh! That's amazing, I wonder if maybe in the hundreds of pages of material on this subject I read, I somehow overlooked the same six or so passages that people quote over and over and over, without ever once asking what they mean, or in what context they were written.

Nah. Too weird a concept.

Once again I say: I've read those, I've thought about them, I've studied them, I've prayed, and *I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION*.

I have also posted *LONG* discussions of *WHY* in the other thread, and it seems that it would be awfully useful to go read the other thread if you want to know how someone could conclude otherwise. Or read any of the *WHOLE BOOKS* that have been written on this topic!

Anyway, go read Romans 2. It's not ours to judge.

 

[Brimshack]

Badfish your previous comments on promotion were not as specific as this last one. I understand it is the notion that homosexuality is okay that you feel is being promoted, and that is what you object to. That does make sense on certain level, but it doesn leave two empirical questions;

1) Does the bible really condemn homosexuality (and to what extent)? This would include questions about whether or not homosexuality is more serious than more common sins regarding sexuality (including lusting for the wrong woman); whether or not some of the passages were really about homosexuality in the original versions, and whether or not the basis for the condemnation differs from the OT and the NT. Seebs can handle this plank much better than I can, so I'll leave that one be for now.

and

2) Is a homosexual orientation genetic. I realize you don't believe that it is Badfish, but there is considerable evidence pointing in that direction. It wouldn't hurt to look it over. If it is genetic, then does this mean that homosexuality is necessarily okay? No, this point won't settle that on its own, but it might lead to a different understanding of the nature of the acts in question. It's worth lookng into the evidence at any rate.

 

[Gunny]

Sexual sin is sexual sin.

GySgt
James

 

[seebs]

That's a wonderful tautalogy. Unfortunately, if someone concludes that sex between spouses is "sexual sin", then your statement asserts that, yes indeedy, it's sexual sin. It doesn't answer any questions.

Sexual morality is a really tough issue, because cultural norms play such a huge role in our emotional evaluation of sexual behavior. At varying times in history, people have believed that living together before marriage was anything from horribly immoral to morally obligatory. Interpretations of the same passages change over time - and yet, at each time, most people think it's *TOTALLY* obvious that the Bible supports the opinions they happen to have grown up with.

The more I read about this, the more it seems to me that this is a human interpretation on God's will, not His will at all.

You can, of course, believe whatever you want. You can look at a word that's been translated fifteen different ways, and pick the one that allows you to condemn people and feel righteous for not falling to their evil ways. You can cherry-pick five or six sins out of hundreds of laws in Leviticus, and feel smug about how stupid I must be not to realize that those, alone among the Levitical laws, are still in force, even though everyone here wears mixed fabrics. You can take a passage on which books have been written, and assert that there's nothing to consider, and its meaning is obvious.

What you can't do, and expect no contradiction, is claim that doing so is *OBVIOUSLY* the only Christian response.

In the end, this is one of the issues where we have allowed our personal biases and impulses to blind us to God's commands. We are putting legalism above compassion; we are putting our interpretation of the words of the text above what God has *told* us His word means. Does anyone remember who the last people to be so sure they knew exactly how to interpret the text were? I'll give you a hint, they were the ones who claimed Jesus was using the devil's power to cast out demons, because they *KNEW* that their holy text didn't allow for the ways in which he broke the law, as they understood it, and they were not willing to consider the possibility that God's love and power were not constrained by human understanding of any text.

 

[Gunny]

Sexual sin is clearly defined in scripture, thus sexual sin is sexual sin.

GySgt
James

 

[OldBadfish]

quoted by seebs: Sexual morality is a really tough issue, because cultural norms play such a huge role in our emotional evaluation of sexual behavior. At varying times in history, people have believed that living together before marriage was anything from horribly immoral to morally obligatory.

seebs, this statement is good, culture and society play huge roles in everything. The bible also clearly addresses premarital sexual activity. Living together unmarried is probably acceptable as long as the unmarried couple's relationship stays platonic until Marriage.

We can't tailor the intrepretation of the bible to accomodate our cultural and social downfalls, the bible is clear and and it's word remains the same.

Does this basically address your questions from my point of view too Brim?

 

[Mandy]

As gunny has pointed out, that sexual sin is sexual sin.
Every type of sexual activity that is outside of a marriage relationship is sin, period. God ordained marriage to be between a man and woman.

1Cor. 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 

[Susan]

Also, the prohibition against homosexual acts was carried into the New Testament.
Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.
The other Levitical things (the prohibition on interracial marriages, rules of dress and grooming, how to plant a garden or field, the leprosy rules) do not appear in the New Testament anywhere, and some appear to even be permitted albeit in an oblique way. Only the condemnations of fornication, incest, and homosexuality from these chapters are carried over into the New Testament.
Therefore these condemnations are still in effect. Else, why did God not allow them to be dropped in the New Covenant?

 

[Brimshack]

Hi Badfish. My goal here has not been to resolve the larger issue of whether or not homosexuality is really wrong, but to try and point out those cases in which Christian opposition to homosexuality may reflect prejudice and/or hatred over and above a legitimate moral stance on the subject. With that in mind, I don't think I have much to argue with you about Badfish. Your position is debatable, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

I would suggest that cultural matters would have been present in the original laws, and so I'm not sure it makes sense to dismiss cultural differences in present questions about this issue. Even if it the various books of the Bible are in fact God's word, it is God's word adressed to specific peoples with specific languages, specific customs, etc. At the very least, the OT references involve serious questions about the role that existing Hebrew standards may have played in forming those laws. This is part of the reason I regard the scriptural basis for opposition to homosexuality as less clear than most Christians seem to suppose.

The reason I brought up the role of sexual sins in the first place is because so many people seem to treat homosexulity as though it were so much worse than other sexual sins committed by traight people on a daily basis. If no-one here is arguing it's worse than the various straight sins, then I am more or less content for the moment.

Gunny, I suspect that you I would disagree with you on this topic, but I'm not going to guess at the details of your position. Adding the word 'clearly' to a claim, however, does no more to advance one's position than producing tautologies. And it is always more easy to claim that something is obvious, then it is to show in reasonable terms that it is even plausible. What are you trying to say?

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Sexual sin is clearly defined in scripture, thus sexual sin is sexual sin.

GySgt
James

 

[Brimshack]

I think there is a point at which this posting and reposting of simple and cryptic remarks becomes a form of spam.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack

The reason I brought up the role of sexual sins in the first place is because so many people seem to treat homosexulity as though it were so much worse than other sexual sins committed by traight people on a daily basis. If no-one here is arguing it's worse than the various straight sins, then I am more or less content for the moment.

Me too. I am mostly offended to see TV preachers with mistresses complaining about gay people who are faithful. Sense of perspective is important.