The "sex" in Homosexuality is what's wrong.

[Fenny the Fox]

If you are non-Christian then of course homosexuality is pretty much an non-issue - and I am ok with that. To me, it is the same with any issue of great debate on this forum...

However, if you are a Christian, and are gay, then it is a totally different matter. Homosexuality has been looked down upon since almost the beginning of time. There are multiple reasons for this: 1. survivability of the human species, 2. The desire of parents to see their children complete the circle of life, 3. God the Father said sodomy was unacceptable behavior, 4. We (as Christians) are not to put anything before God... God comes first and foremost.

It was, and still is, thought that one who engages in homosexual sex is putting their own desires before God - thus sinning. No more or less of a sin than one putting their desire of food, drink, money, etc, before God. However, Christ's moral body died for our sins, and if one is saved, baptized, and lives in Faith, who other than God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ can say who is not heaven bound. For sin kills the body, but with Faith, the Holy Spirit in you will be alive and heaven bound - gay or not

I think the thought of homosexual sex was the very reason he specifically took that out of the equation, saying that they did not plan to engage in such relations, to remove the "sin of sodomy" from the situation. In which case, the men are simply two men dating as any other couple would.

For me, I would have no qualms with this. It is, to me (my opinion only here, y'know?), that the sex is the sin. Just as it would be a sin if a couple (heterosexual) had sex when not wed. I see little difference in these two as far as the sin goes: only the biological/anatomical sex of the two individuals in question.

And, to francais, I wish you luck and love in life. May God bless you.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

If you are non-Christian then of course homosexuality is pretty much an non-issue - and I am ok with that. To me, it is the same with any issue of great debate on this forum...

However, if you are a Christian, and are gay, then it is a totally different matter. Homosexuality has been looked down upon since almost the beginning of time. There are multiple reasons for this: 1. survivability of the human species, 2. The desire of parents to see their children complete the circle of life, 3. God the Father said sodomy was unacceptable behavior, 4. We (as Christians) are not to put anything before God... God comes first and foremost.

It was, and still is, thought that one who engages in homosexual sex is putting their own desires before God - thus sinning. No more or less of a sin than one putting their desire of food, drink, money, etc, before God. However, Christ's moral body died for our sins, and if one is saved, baptized, and lives in Faith, who other than God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ can say who is not heaven bound. For sin kills the body, but with Faith, the Holy Spirit in you will be alive and heaven bound - gay or not

How orthodox.

But I see no need to engage the neologism "gay." Same-gender sexual behavior is lengthy, but in line with Biblical reality.

 

[AMR]

I'm not just asking this to be difficult but I must ask. How do we know God used inspired writers for His special revelation to man? I'm not even saying that He didn't do so but ...where is the evidence - outside of the Bible - for this? There are an increasing number of people out there who cannot simply accept what YOU believe without some 'tangible' evidence. This doesn't make them bad people. It means that they require more than simply 'faith' before they can make a commitment to 'believe'. Does that sound fair enough to you?

I appreciate the issue. For many, it seems to me that in matters of the bible the demand for evidence exceeds the demand for many other things that people 'believe', a sort of double standard. This tells me that many persons' epistemologies are not fully formed. The historicity of the bible accounts are well documented outside of Scripture alone. The person of Jesus Christ, Paul, etc., really existed as historians or repute will assert. The rapid spread of Christianity exceeds the normal spread of mere legends. The manuscript evidence for Scripture is greater than any historical documents we have in existence. Yet you will find many believing in Homer's Illiad, with its limited manuscript evidence over the manuscript evidence of the bible. The real question is simply, is faith in the words of the bible a warranted faith? The answer is resoundingly "yes" by proper objective reasoning.

I recently replied to a post with respect to the uniqueness of Christianity here that you may find useful:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7377863-2/#post52136595

So why then are we dealing here with people who claim to KNOW the mind of God? I know my Bible as well as the next man but I have to confess that I haven't got a clue how the mind of an entity such as 'God' could EVER be understood by human beings. Understanding Jesus and His message to mankind is, however, much more 'human friendly'.

I am a relative newbee here, so I cannot speak for those that would make a statement claiming they have fully apprehended the mind of God. Yikes! We can know some things about God for He has revealed aspects of Himself to us in Scripture. Nevertheless, we all see through a glass dimly and are finite creatures attempting to understand the infinite Almighty God.

Your view, that there is no way we could ever understand anything about God is almost Barthian (after Karl Barth), and is a view that some would claim. I think this goes too far from what we are told in Scripture by God, who spoke through men to reveal Himself to His creatures. The Incarnate Jesus was "God with a face", so we can learn much about God by examining the God-man and those inspired apostles who walked with Him, wrote of Him, and willingly laid down their lives for Him.

AMR

 

[Nimrauko]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, noble and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

<staff edit>

There are two fundamental christian principals the Anti-Gay christians seem to conveniently forget. The whole, judge not lest ye be judged and my favorite one of all.

[bible] 7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
[/bible]

Christ would be ASHAMED of all the "Christians" that use his word to attempt to bash people and make them feel like they are dirty and perverse, when its simply not the case. I often giggle when I think about it. Because a lot of the ones that claim Homosexuality is such a bad thing, are the ones who are running around on their wives with other women, children, or even men. But I dont judge. Unlike you I wish to be christlike.

 

[LittleNipper]

<staff edit>


There are two fundamental christian principals the Anti-Gay christians seem to conveniently forget. The whole, judge not lest ye be judged and my favorite one of all.

[bible] 7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
[/bible]

Christ would be ASHAMED of all the "Christians" that use his word to attempt to bash people and make them feel like they are dirty and perverse, when its simply not the case. I often giggle when I think about it. Because a lot of the ones that claim Homosexuality is such a bad thing, are the ones who are running around on their wives with other women, children, or even men. But I dont judge. Unlike you I wish to be christlike.

I will let JESUS CHRIST answer you

Matthew 19:


3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

The one who can accept this should accept it."

 

[Nimrauko]

I will let JESUS CHRIST answer you

Matthew 19:


3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

The one who can accept this should accept it."

im not seeing where you are saying I am wrong

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The GLBT issue is one that is purely charged with emotionalism. On the purely logical it loses every argument for it.

I was having a bad day and then this made me laugh out loud.

Thanks for that.

 

[LittleNipper]

im not seeing where you are saying I am wrong

MARRIAGE IS ONLY ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN. It isn't whatever ONE wants it to be...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

MARRIAGE IS ONLY ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN. It isn't whatever ONE wants it to be...

There are a few states that would disagree with that first sentence. And who's advocating what you're suggesting in the second sentence?

 

[Nimrauko]

MARRIAGE IS ONLY ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN. It isn't whatever ONE wants it to be...

Firstly, I love you how you twist a passage out of context to fit your message, yet you dont refute what I say. You just claim your belief that marriage is only between men and women. Find ONE passage that is IN CONTEXT that states "I jesus christ say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman". Because you cant, thus its an opinion founded on your own belief. Not christs.

 

[LittleNipper]

There are a few states that would disagree with that first sentence. And who's advocating what you're suggesting in the second sentence?

Frankly, I really don't care what the "states" have to say. I only try to put into practice what GOD wants. That is what counts. Homosexuals are. There is no such a thing as homosexual marriage. The next thing will be multiple wives or husbands.

They practice that in some countries. Then if a guy can marry a guy, Guys can marry guys, and then men will be looking to marry other apes.
It will be advocated. The writting is on the wall. It really doesn't take any stretch of the imagination.

 

[b&wpac4]

Frankly, I really don't care what the "states" have to say. I only try to put into practice what GOD wants. That is what counts. Homosexuals are. There is no such a thing as homosexual marriage. The next thing will be multiple wives or husbands.

They practice that in some countries. Then if a guy can marry a guy, Guys can marry guys, and then men will be looking to marry other apes.
It will be advocated. The writting is on the wall. It really doesn't take any stretch of the imagination.

How many wives did Solomon have again? I keep getting hundreds confused with one.

 

[LittleNipper]

Firstly, I love you how you twist a passage out of context to fit your message, yet you dont refute what I say. You just claim your belief that marriage is only between men and women. Find ONE passage that is IN CONTEXT that states "I jesus christ say that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman". Because you cant, thus its an opinion founded on your own belief. Not christs.

I find it ironic that you would say that, since JESUS is clearly speaking to the fact that GOD created man to marry women and that that relationship was supposed to be permanent ----- NO DIVORCE!

JESUS CHRIST never even considered man to man marriage. Could that mean that HE simply doesn't consider it?

In the entire BIBLE, there is not one mention of a woman to woman "marriage" or a man with man "marriage." Yet marriage is mentioned throughout the Bible ------------ Why is that?

 

[Jase]

I don't give Paul the same status that I give to Jesus so whatever the NT may have to say about the issue of homosexuality (which it doesn't, per se) then I pretty well disregard it. That leaves Leviticus which, as I say, has already been rejected. One last thing, even the 'man lying' text in Leviticus is not as clear-cut as some would have it. There are definitions of the text that have nothing to do with homosexuality as we refer to it these days.

I'd like to add another point on the Lev 18 "clobber" passage. Aside from the hypocrisy of Christians citing that as an abomination, and ignoring every other of the 613 mitzvos, the verse in question is certainly as you say not clear cut.

I've read the general cosensus among Christian churches who support gays and lesbians ( even conservative ones) and rabbis is that Leviticus 18 is prohibition against a male playing the passive role, normally assigned to a woman. The ancient Israelites were a patriarchal society in which women were inferior, and men were dominant. This is where the issue arises. In a male-male relationship of ancient times, if one man were to assume the subservient role of a woman, it was seen as inapropriate. A parallel situation would be a women supervising a man in the workplace - another abomination by Biblical standards. This is the reason lesbianism isn't condemned in the Bible - because women were inferior, so two women sleeping together never brought up the issue of dominance. Had there been a universal condemnation of homosexuality - 1) lesbianism would have been explicitly banned, and 2) Leviticus wouldn't have added the caveat "[A man shall not lie with another man] in beds of a woman" There is obviously a reason the bolded part is added. Because to have relations with another man, as one would with a woman ( or in her bed according to some literal translations) was seen as a violation of the male dominant status in such a patriarchial society.

 

[Jase]

Frankly, I really don't care what the "states" have to say. I only try to put into practice what GOD wants. That is what counts. Homosexuals are. There is no such a thing as homosexual marriage. The next thing will be multiple wives or husbands.

There also used to be no such thing as inter-racial marriage thanks to Biblical prejudice. Good thing the Supreme Court doesn't consider what you put into practice as valid.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

How many wives did Solomon have again? I keep getting hundreds confused with one.

Let's see how that all turned out for dear old Shlomo. 1 kings 11:

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

///

Maybe we should have this debate over in the Gays in the Church thread?

 

[b&wpac4]

Let's see how that all turned out for dear old Shlomo. 1 kings 11:

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

///

Maybe we should have this debate over in the Gays in the Church thread?

Find then, forget Solomon, David had many wives, and it was only his actions regarding one of them that God did not like.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I'd like to add another point on the Lev 18 "clobber" passage. Aside from the hypocrisy of Christians citing that as an abomination, and ignoring every other of the 613 mitzvos, the verse in question is certainly as you say not clear cut.

There are meny more effective passages with which to clobber the gay theologian with. Jude clobbered them back then with all the same tools we have at our use today.

I've read the general cosensus among Christian churches who support gays and lesbians ( even conservative ones) and rabbis is that Leviticus 18 is prohibition against a male playing the passive role, normally assigned to a woman.

Um, someone has to "play" the opposite role even on today's modern gay/lesbian relationship. Two wives makes the clobber passages swell to a whole lot more than just Leviticus.

The ancient Israelites were a patriarchal society in which women were inferior, and men were dominant.

Now visualize same gender sexual behavior tehn/today, only with modern toys and lubricants. The roles remain identical. Just more kind of fibers in the clothing laying around the floor.

This is where the issue arises. In a male-male relationship of ancient times, if one man were to assume the subservient role of a woman, it was seen as inapropriate.

And science has changed that how in a few short millenia?

A parallel situation would be a women supervising a man in the workplace - another abomination by Biblical standards.

Not in Judges.

This is the reason lesbianism isn't condemned in the Bible - because women were inferior, so two women sleeping together never brought up the issue of dominance.

Eh-hem?

Had there been a universal condemnation of homosexuality - 1) lesbianism would have been explicitly banned,

It was/they were. The Israelites were not to go whoring around in detestable practices of the nations around them. There's all sorts of scripture on that. Molech anyone?

and 2) Leviticus wouldn't have added the caveat "[A man shall not lie with another man] in beds of a woman"

To make clear it was sex acts they were condemning.

There is obviously a reason the bolded part is added. Because to have relations with another man, as one would with a woman ( or in her bed according to some literal translations) was seen as a violation of the male dominant status in such a patriarchial society.

And then of course you have the warnings about not doing what the pagans do and turn the pages to the Apostles reinforcing the inappropriateness of perversion and sexual sin.

And there you have it. Clobber passages from one end of the Bible to the other.

 

[LittleNipper]

How many wives did Solomon have again? I keep getting hundreds confused with one.

Yes, and that man had nothing but trouble. He did what was socially acceptable for Near Eastern Kings; however, it wasn't what GOD wanted. It was what GOD allowed ------ same as divorce.

 

[Maren]

Yes, and that man had nothing but trouble. He did what was socially acceptable for Near Eastern Kings; however, it wasn't what GOD wanted. It was what GOD allowed ------ same as divorce.

This seems to be Christians seeing what they want to see. There is no evidence in the Bible that polygamy was something that God merely allowed. The difference between polygamy and divorce is that divorce is actually talked about as a sin in the Bible, just that it was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts. By contrast, nowhere in the Bible is polygamy talked about as a sin or that it isn't approved, the closest you get is in Timothy 3:2 where it says the leader of a church should have one wife. Solomon did not go astray because he had so many wives, rather it is made clear that it is because he took foreign wives, which was against God's commands, and it was they who tempted him from God.

And then we have the prophet coming to David after he has had Uriah killed so that he could marry Bathsheba. The prophet Nathan says, "I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!" (2 Samuel 12:8). The prophet does not condemn David's polygamy or even his wanting another wife. Rather, the Lord says that He gave David his wives and would have given him more if he would have asked. No, the sin here is that David coveted another man's wife and had him murdered to get her (breaking two of the Ten Commandments). If you really read the Old Testament objectively, there is no condemnation or disapproval by the Lord of polygamy, and other than Timothy saying that church leaders should have "one wife", it is not addressed in the New Testament at all.