No such thing as homosexual or heterosexual.

[Zecryphon]

according to some here on CF there are some people (gay ones apparently) who are not only defined by their being gay, but were in fact not even part of Gods creation!
tulc(though who it was that did create them was a little unclear)

If you do a very literal reading of the Bible and are looking for the word homosexual specifically and when the people who are homosexual were created, it is true you will not find it. You can replace the word homosexual with almost any other descriptor of a person and you will not find that specific thing being created by God either.

 

[Zecryphon]

Of course there is, I was just responding in a ridiculous way to the ridiculous claims of the thread. Simple really.

We may have to, agree to disagree, but I don't think the claims of the OP are that ridiculous. I said it elsewhere, I don't know if it was in this thread or not, but I don't see the Bible addressing a sexual orientation as a sin. I see the Bible addressing certain sexual actions as a sin. There are condemnations against both same-sex sex and heterosexual sex, so the straight people don't have it any easier than the gay people when it comes to proper sexual conduct that is pleasing to God. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin as well.

 

[Texas Lynn]

We may have to, agree to disagree, but I don't think the claims of the OP are that ridiculous. I said it elsewhere, I don't know if it was in this thread or not, but I don't see the Bible addressing a sexual orientation as a sin. I see the Bible addressing certain sexual actions as a sin. There are condemnations against both same-sex sex and heterosexual sex, so the straight people don't have it any easier than the gay people when it comes to proper sexual conduct that is pleasing to God. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin as well.

Precisely why same gender marriage is needed. Thank you.

 

[tulc]

If you do a very literal reading of the Bible and are looking for the word homosexual specifically and when the people who are homosexual were created, it is true you will not find it. You can replace the word homosexual with almost any other descriptor of a person and you will not find that specific thing being created by God either.

...but people (regardless of any of the attachments we accumulate ) were all created from the Creation, right?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Zecryphon]

Tell you what: WHY DON'T YOU GO TO PUERTO RICAN DAY AT CENTRAL PARK and set fire to the P.R. Flag and then holler: "I exist because there is more to me than just my ethnicity. Isn't there more to you than just your being Pureto Rican? Are you nothing else?"

And, if you are unwilling to do that, then kindly stop making such silly comments to other groups you dislike.

Please show me where in any of my posts thus far I have said I don't like homosexuals. I have done nothing to deserve your unfounded accusations about me or to be told to perpetrate hate crimes against ANY group of people. I have been kind and civil in my posts. So why is it that you advocate love, mercy and grace towards GLBT's but never extend that same love, mercy and grace to those you THINK are different from you? Am I not deserving of your love as a fellow Christian simply because I happen to be heterosexual? Or is it because I'm a Lutheran? Is it cuz I may disagree with you? Your whole post is needlessly harsh and hurts me deeply. It's based upon suspicion and nothing more. I've done absolutely nothing to you or to anyone else in this thread to deserve to receive this kind of a response. I am not here to engage in a flame war or to trade insults with other people. I'm here to post what I think, share my opinions and read the posts of others. I will pray for God to give you the ability to love others who are different from you. I will pray that God will grant you the kind of heart that is necessary to live out the words you type about grace, love and mercy. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who scream the loudest about love, grace and mercy for (insert group here) never have grace, love or mercy for their opponents. Sad.

 

[Zecryphon]

...but people (regardless of any of the attachments we accumulate ) were all created from the Creation, right?
tulc(just wondering)

People? Adam and Eve were created by God. Everybody else came from Adam and Eve and their offspring. I don't see everybody else being created in the same way that Adam and Eve were. The whole debate about whether or not God created homosexuals in the Genesis account of creation is ultimately moot anyway since God sent a flood to wipe out everybody who wasn't Noah or his family. So whether or not God created homosexuals when He created Adam and Eve is really a stupid debate to have and I told IAR as much in a PM. If such a question needs to be asked at all about homosexuals, woudn't it be 'where were they created post-flood'? But does that even matter? I mean they're a part of our world and need the blood of Christ for forgiveness of their sins as much as I do, not more than I do.

 

[Zecryphon]

Precisely why same gender marriage is needed. Thank you.

Could you please explain your post to me? I'm failing to see how having same-sex marriage will change anything in terms of what God considers to be proper sexual conduct for human beings? Also, who are we, as His creation, to dictate to Him what should and should not be when it comes to marriage? He has given the example that is to be followed when entering into a marriage, one man and one woman. I don't see any other kind of marriage in the scriptures that differs from that model.

 

[tulc]

People? Adam and Eve were created by God. Everybody else came from Adam and Eve and their offspring. I don't see everybody else being created in the same way that Adam and Eve were. The whole debate about whether or not God created homosexuals in the Genesis account of creation is ultimately moot anyway since God sent a flood to wipe out everybody who wasn't Noah or his family. So whether or not God created homosexuals when He created Adam and Eve is really a stupid debate to have and I told IAR as much in a PM. If such a question needs to be asked at all about homosexuals, woudn't it be 'where were they created post-flood'? But does that even matter? I mean they're a part of our world and need the blood of Christ for forgiveness of their sins as much as I do, not more than I do.

tulc(I agree)

 

[Texas Lynn]

Please show me where in any of my posts thus far I have said I don't like homosexuals. I have done nothing to deserve your unfounded accusations about me or to be told to perpetrate hate crimes against ANY group of people. I have been kind and civil in my posts. So why is it that you advocate love, mercy and grace towards GLBT's but never extend that same love, mercy and grace to those you THINK are different from you? Am I not deserving of your love as a fellow Christian simply because I happen to be heterosexual? Or is it because I'm a Lutheran? Is it cuz I may disagree with you? Your whole post is needlessly harsh and hurts me deeply. It's based upon suspicion and nothing more. I've done absolutely nothing to you or to anyone else in this thread to deserve to receive this kind of a response. I am not here to engage in a flame war or to trade insults with other people. I'm here to post what I think, share my opinions and read the posts of others. I will pray for God to give you the ability to love others who are different from you. I will pray that God will grant you the kind of heart that is necessary to live out the words you type about grace, love and mercy. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who scream the loudest about love, grace and mercy for (insert group here) never have grace, love or mercy for their opponents. Sad.

the response was appropriate to this unkind post of yours:

I exist because there is more to me than just my sexual orientation. Isn't there more to you than just your sexual orientation? Are you nothing else?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Could you please explain your post to me? I'm failing to see how having same-sex marriage will change anything in terms of what God considers to be proper sexual conduct for human beings? Also, who are we, as His creation, to dictate to Him what should and should not be when it comes to marriage? He has given the example that is to be followed when entering into a marriage, one man and one woman. I don't see any other kind of marriage in the scriptures that differs from that model.

The reseponses of conservatives to LGBTs amounts to "whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding". One method in which this is done is to decry what promiscuity exists among LGBTs while dishonoring LGBTs' exclusive relationships. There is disagreement about what "God considers" and the claim to know this for others constitutes arrogance.

 

[Zecryphon]

the response was appropriate to this unkind post of yours:

[/color][/size][/font]

How is my response unkind? I made a statement about myself that applies only to me. I then asked a question about someone who had made a statement about themselves I found difficult to believe. I have been told by Jamielindas that I missed the joke. So, if the statement to which I responded was indeed a joke, how is your post warranted?

Also, the person to whom I asked my questions told me her statement was a ridiculous response to what she considered a ridiculous claim in the OP. Both of these responses were far more understanding than that emotion-laden tirade you want to pass off as a reasonable response.

I see nothing in my post that could possibly justify your telling someone to go to NYC during the Puerto Rican Day parade and commit a hate crime. But apparently you do. That's one difference between us. Let's see if we can through civil discourse if we can discover if there are other differences between us. Of course for that to happen you have to be civil. Can you do that? Time will tell.

 

[Zecryphon]

The reseponses of conservatives to LGBTs amounts to "whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding". One method in which this is done is to decry what promiscuity exists among LGBTs while dishonoring LGBTs' exclusive relationships. There is disagreement about what "God considers" and the claim to know this for others constitutes arrogance.

First of all your characterization of all conservatives holding to this 'whip them til they bleed...'position is a gross and stereotypical mischaracterization of the conservative position. Now, granted there are some conservatives who do hold such a position. One group that leaps to mind is Fred Phelps and his congregants. They, however, do not represent the majority of conservative Christians and do not speak for conservative Christians as a whole.

I have not met one conservative Christian in real life or in this forum who advocates such a position, as it clearly violates the written word of God to love your neighbor as yourself. Since conservative Christians hold the written word of God in such high regard and strive to uphold all of its teachings, moral and spiritual, to the best of their abilities, I find your claim that all conservative Christians are a certain way towards GLBT's to be flawed.

You have made it clear from your posts that you do not want all GLBT's lumped together as sinners, so why do you feel it is okay to lump all conservative Christians together as nothing more than gay bashers? Just what is the difference between an exclusive homosexual relationship and an exclusive heterosexual relationship? And I'm taking the word 'exclusive' here to mean a long-term committed relationship that involves sex between the two participants. Is this how you are defining 'exclusive relationship' as well?

 

[Unbroken]

The reseponses of conservatives to LGBTs amounts to "whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding". One method in which this is done is to decry what promiscuity exists among LGBTs while dishonoring LGBTs' exclusive relationships. There is disagreement about what "God considers" and the claim to know this for others constitutes arrogance.

On the contrary. As a fundamentalist Baptist, I don't want to hurt, nor oppress people who commit the sins we refer to as homosexuality [Lusting after a person of the same sex, having intercourse with those people, ect].

Also, according to the Bible which all Christians are supposed to follow, and should believe [if you don't believe the Bible, well, then you negate the whole bottom line of Christianity], marriage is a holy union under God between a man and a woman. If marriage is between man and man, it is not God's definition of marriage. Does it then recieve His blessing, to condone the marriage? I can't say that it does.
Of course, I'm not God and can't say that it doesn't either, but your playing with fire there. The only thing we can know for sure is that a union by a man and woman IS considered the sacred union of marriage. And we can infer that since the Bible condemns sexuality between two of the same sex, it is not considered holy.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Texas Lynn,

Christ was entirely silent on the matter.

The fact is He wasn’t. If He had been entirely silent you have nothing to show your views are in line with God’s purposes. As it is we can see from the NT teaching Christ did say enough about it. The whole debate has been posters like yourself denying it.

In creation God made male and female it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. This is what Jesus NT teaching is recording. Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5. A man and a woman is not same-sex or homosexual. Jesus Christ’s NT teaching offers celibacy as the alternative to faithful man/woman union, Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. Celibacy isn’t even an alternative union, its no union. That rules out same-sex unions or homosexual. Same-sex sex is condemned as error, directly, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, and indirectly 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.
Yes Texas Lynn, neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit was silent, the modern concept of homosexual is essentially not Godly.

Furthermore, I don’t hate myself because I fall short of God’s glory and sin, nor do I hate adulterers when they commit adultery, nor do I hate homosexuals when they commit sodomy. I don’t have to like someone’s sin to like the person. There is a continual implication here that unless people agree with same-sex unions people must hate homosexuals. Its not true in the slightest.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

got another spike in the irony meter when you posted what Texas Lynn said was "just opinion" what's yours if not also just "your opinion"?

Because I have offered the scripture which, in my opinion is the word of God. Texas Lynn has just given her opinion, which is contrary to the word of God.
So yes, my opinion is God’s Biblical testimony is true and Texas Lynn’s opinion isnt.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Dear tulc,
Because I have offered the scripture which, in my opinion is the word of God. Texas Lynn has just given her opinion, which is contrary to the word of God.
So yes, my opinion is God’s Biblical testimony is true and Texas Lynn’s opinion isnt.

Per your interpretation, that is all.

 

[KCKID]

Dear TexasLynn,
The fact is He (Jesus) wasn’t (silent about homosexuality). If He had been entirely silent you have nothing to show your views are in line with God’s purposes. As it is we can see from the NT teaching Christ did say enough about it. The whole debate has been posters like yourself denying it.

Ho-hum. Here we go again. God is God. Jesus is Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Paul is ...well, Paul WAS a mere mortal. His words are not, nor should they be considered to be, divine. Inspired, perhaps.

When someone states with honesty that Jesus never breathed a word about homosexuality in the Bible then others should not be using ancient OT ordinances and such, or the writings of a mere mortal, and say that JESUS HIMSELF said those things. The facts are that JESUS as a living, breathing, independent individual is NOT recorded ANYWHERE in the scriptures as EVER having addressed the issue of homosexuality. That fact is indesputable.

If the status of Jesus is to be bestowed upon Paul (especially) and other Apostles then we might just as well give the same divine status to other mere mortals of more recent times ...people such as Joseph Smith (Church of the Latter Day Saints) or Ellen G. White (Seventh-Day Adventist Church). There is little doubt that these people 'spoke' Jesus also. If you must make a scriptural case against homosexuality, Phinehas, then please do so without involving Jesus. To have Jesus saying things that He did not say is a blatant lie.

In creation God made male and female it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. This is what Jesus NT teaching is recording. Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5. A man and a woman is not same-sex or homosexual. Jesus Christ’s NT teaching offers celibacy as the alternative to faithful man/woman union, Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. Celibacy isn’t even an alternative union, its no union. That rules out same-sex unions or homosexual. Same-sex sex is condemned as error, directly, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, and indirectly 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.

The whole point of Jesus saying what He said about marriage (though true and correct) was merely in response to an issue raised by some Pharisees about divorce. Furthermore, they were testing Jesus. Jesus' response was aimed specifically at them KNOWING that the Pharisees' question was wrongly motivated to begin with. For you to be taking Jesus' response and turning it into an anti-gay message (which is what you ARE doing) is something that you need to retract. Please, Phinehas, fight your anti-gay battle without resorting to lies.

By the way, in this passage Jesus refers to eunuchs as 'being born that way'. Have you not already stated that NO ONE is born a heterosexual, homosexual, or a eunuch ...? Hmmm . . .

Yes Texas Lynn, neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit was silent, the modern concept of homosexual is essentially not Godly.

As mentioned ...a blatant lie.

Furthermore, I don’t hate myself because I fall short of God’s glory and sin, nor do I hate adulterers when they commit adultery, nor do I hate homosexuals when they commit sodomy. I don’t have to like someone’s sin to like the person. There is a continual implication here that unless people agree with same-sex unions people must hate homosexuals. Its not true in the slightest.

Condemnation/hatred of another presented in a pious and subtle guise is no less condemnation/hatred.