Time to end this.

[Apollo Celestio]

Same sex sex, anything considered sex, I don't know the different ways..or care to.

 

[BreadAlone]

'Fraid you're wrong on this one. A homosexual is someone who's inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as him- or her- self. Whether he or she has engaged in a sexual act is irrelevant.

Would you say that someone isn't a heterosexual unless they've had heterosexual sex? Or that one isn't a bisexual unless they've had sex with people of both genders?

David.

From Dictionary.com:

homosexual
adjective1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

So it would appear, in a way, we are both right.

If someone is actively a homosexual in the sense of the noun, then they are sinning.

However, if they are homosexual in the sense of the adjective, I just consider that tempatation, and as long as they don't act on it, they're not sinning in that regard. And I wouldn't call them homosexual, though maybe they'd want to be.

 

[BigBadWlf]

From Dictionary.com:

homosexual
adjective1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

So it would appear, in a way, we are both right.

If someone is actively a homosexual in the sense of the noun, then they are sinning.

However, if they are homosexual in the sense of the adjective, I just consider that tempatation, and as long as they don't act on it, they're not sinning in that regard. And I wouldn't call them homosexual, though maybe they'd want to be.

An honest person would have included all the entries found on Dictionary.com, not just selecting one from the list.

But since you cherry picked something from that list I feel free to do the same:

Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.​

 

[BreadAlone]

An honest person would have included all the entries found on Dictionary.com, not just selecting one from the list.

But since you cherry picked something from that list I feel free to do the same:

Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.​

Sorry I didn't include the dozen nearly identicle definitions for you.

But since you brought that one up, let's look at the first sentence:

Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality.

Sounds like pretty much what I was talking about, no?

Thank you for nit-picking and not addressing the actual issue at hand.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

An honest person would have included all the entries found on Dictionary.com, not just selecting one from the list.

But since you cherry picked something from that list I feel free to do the same:

Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.​

Debate or not, seriously, stop with thinking everyone has evil motives against you.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

People are gay no matter what they are doing.

Just like someone can be black even in they are in a room without any light.

Being gay is not the issue, sorry.

 

[BreadAlone]

I think it's time for me to take another break from DoH..

 

[BigBadWlf]

Debate or not, seriously, stop with thinking everyone has evil motives against you.

Against me?

Why would I think that?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear BigBadWlf,

Christians don’t lie about gays and lesbians?

Focus on the Family doesn’t’ lie about homosexuals?

The Family research council doesn’t lie about homosexuals
Concerned Woman of America Doesn’t lie about homosexuals?
NARTH doesn’t lie about homosexuals?
You must have changed the definition of lying

The answer is no. You said they do so give me examples. I think you will find your examples are wrong.

 

[David Brider]

From Dictionary.com:

homosexual
adjective1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

So it would appear, in a way, we are both right.

That's (IMO) a slightly dubious dictionary (what the heck does it mean by "someone who practices homosexuality"?), but both the noun and adjective definition include sexual attraction, so I'm not sure why you want to make the distinction you're making.

If someone is actively a homosexual in the sense of the noun, then they are sinning.

According to some points of view, that may be the case.

However, if they are homosexual in the sense of the adjective, I just consider that tempatation...

Tell me, would you consider being heterosexual - in the sense of being inclined to be attracted to people of the opposite gender to yourself - to be a temptation as well?

and as long as they don't act on it, they're not sinning in that regard. And I wouldn't call them homosexual...

Why not, though? Do you define someone's sexuality purely in terms of sexual activity? Most people I know would define sexuality in terms of sexual attraction. In the usage with which I'm familiar, someone is homosexual if they're attracted to people of the same gender as themselves, regardless of whether or not they are involved in a sexually active relationship.

Would you say that someone only becomes a heterosexual when they start being sexually active with people of the opposite gender to themselves? If so, how does that work? What would you say they are before they start being sexually active - asexual?

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

That's (IMO) a slightly dubious dictionary (what the heck does it mean by "someone who practices homosexuality"?), but both the noun and adjective definition include sexual attraction.

I think this speaks volumes. I have already been through this with Ohioprof. Some of you guys don’t seem to accept dictionary definitions, but I don’t entirely disagree, as already the dictionary definitions have been introduced to try and accommodate gay thinking in the first place.

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,

I think this speaks volumes. I have already been through this with Ohioprof. Some of you guys don’t seem to accept dictionary definitions, but I don’t entirely disagree, as already the dictionary definitions have been introduced to try and accommodate gay thinking in the first place.

What exactly does it speak volumes about, though? Some dictionary definitions are flawed, or at least don't capture all the nuances and meanings of particular words and phrases. A definition of "homosexual" which emphasises homosexual activity as opposed to homosexual orientation, is a definition which is totally out of sync with the usage of the word as I've experienced, particularly (but by no means limited to) its usage in the LGBTQ community.

Should we just accept flawed definitions, or stick to more accurate ones?

David.

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
I didn’t ask you to name names, I asked you to show me the phrases, and it is difficult to spot as I don’t see any… hence the reason I asked you.

Okay, to give just three examples:

At least one person has equated homosexuality with mental illness.

Another has said that if homosexuals pray to God for their sexual orientation to be changed and experience no change in their orientation, that the fault lies with them, because they haven't submitted to God.

The same person has also said that it's impossible to please God if one is a homosexual, and has come (IMO) perilously close to suggesting that being homosexual is incompatible with being Christian.

Granted, I could be charitable and assume that these sorts of statements aren't the result of hatred, but on the whole, given the language and tone used they certainly seem to be so. They certainly don't seem to be the result of any sort of love or compassion, despite the posters in question occasionally paying lip service to such concepts.

Again, I ask you and everyone else reading and contributing to this thread - if you were a homosexual man or woman reading some of this material, would you honestly, in your hear of hearts, believe that the people typing some of these messages were doing so in a spirit of love, or out of hatred?

We've been over this before. You seem unwilling to countenance any interpretation or translation of the texts other than the one you agree with, and have decided that all such differing interpretations and translations indicate disbelief and hatred against God's word.

No again I am talking about the texts themselves, I am happy with the Bible translations and can see they are ok.

Fine. You're happy with the translations and believe they are OK. But do you not understand that it's possible to have differing opinions about various passages that have nothing to do with "disbelief and hatred against God's word"? If anything, it seems to me that trying to be clear about what the Bible means and says, is the opposite of disbelief.

Some are happy to quote ‘love ones neighour as oneself’ Should I suggest a better translation would be ‘same-sex sex is error’? You try and claim texts you don’t like are interpretation.

You're getting cause and effect mixed up here. It's not the texts that I don't like - it's flawed interpretations and translations of those texts.

The text is the text, it says what it says.

If you've ever believed or said:

* That the sin of Sodom was homosexual sex
* That the writer of Leviticus 18:22 said that homosexuality is an abomination to God
* That in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul was talking about homosexuals...

...then you've made the text say something other than what it says.

the Bible translations put before you say what they say and they are accurate.

How do you know they're accurate, though? Given that there are people who think they're inaccurate, should we just ignore the claims of inaccuracy, or bring them to the table and examine them and use them to help us understand the Bible better?

Don't forget, the Bible wasn't written in the western world yesterday in English - it was written in the middle east, between about 3500 and 2000 years ago, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. That means that as well as a translation from one language to another, there's also the temporal and cultural divide between us and the Bible's authors. Every translation must make some sort of attempt to honestly communicate the Bible's messages through those three divides, but realistically, no translation is ever going to be 100% perfect, despite the best intentions of the translators. There's always room for improvement.

Tell me this, if you think the Bible should be re-translated how much of it do you think would change as a general guess? Were you thinking of just the bits that you don’t like about same-sex unions?

I think we owe it to ourselves not to let our assumptions get in the way of understanding the texts. There are many areas where it's far too easy to let modern cultural thinking interpret the Bible for us. For example, the pronouncements about witchcraft have nothing to do with modern witchcraft, but are often interpreted as if they do; other examples are Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword, which is often regarded by some commentators as carte blanche permission to own and use guns; and Paul's writing in Romans 13 about submission to governing authorities is used (particularly by American Christians) as evidence that we should be happy to accept the US government's aggressive foreign policy and use of capital punishment, but the fact that, read that literally, it should also be used to argue that Saddam Hussein's government of Iraq was God-ordained, seems to be quite blissfully ignored.

So yes, we should certainly (IMO) be open to the possibility that certain passages of Scripture may contain more subtle nuances and variations of meaning than we may think they mean. Test our assumptions. Test everything. Hold on to that which is good.

On the contrary there is no homosexual or heterosexual in Christ Jesus, no male or female, Christians just tell men and women about the gospel. Of you are telling homosexual men they can be homosexual sinners and still be saved you are giving them a false gospel.

We're all sinners. I am, you are, every Christian is. Although we repent of our sin when we come to the cross, we nevertheless continue to sin, and repent of that daily. Our continued propensite for sin doesn't affect our salvation, although I certainly know that we should be striving for holiness in every aspect of our lives. The message for homosexual men and women is the same as for other men and women - repent of sin, accept Christ as Lord and Saviour, live new lives as children of God. I'm not convinced that sexual orientation can stand in the way of that salvation. I don't entirely share your beliefs about sexual activity, but then frankly I don't think that other people's sexual activity is either your or my business - it's up to the individual to sort that out with God prayerfully. God knows that I don't believe in sex before marriage, and that therefore my fiancée and I have decided to remain chaste until our wedding night. What other people choose to do is up to them.

This is gay theology it is gay based not Christ based.

No, it's perfectly Christ-based. We've been given the ministry of reconciliation, of leading people towards God, not driving them away because of our prejudicial treatment of them.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,
Thanks for your response.

Should we just accept flawed definitions, or stick to more accurate ones?

Well I did say I tended to agree with you but the difficulty with the dictionary definitions it would seem is that it doesn’t suit the homosexuals.
I think it is important the definition is understood if the definition is used.
But having said that Jesus says even looking at another woman apart for ones wife is adultery in ones heart, so one could say heterosexuality is inherently sinful. But I think it is the action that shows the temptation has been acted on.
However the Biblical warnings are for the sexually immoral acts. That is why it is best to refer to same-sex sex or homosexual practice. Alas those who propose same sex unions rarely refer to same-sex sex or homosexual practice and often merely refer to homosexual when the sexual acts are being discussed.

Okay, to give just three examples:

That’s great thanks.

At least one person has equated homosexuality with mental illness.

Ok but how do you know that poster is motivated by hatred rather than love? They may just be misinformed.
Consider what Jesus said.
“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Is Jesus implying I am, like everyone else as a sinner, sick. Maybe I don’t mind.

Another has said that if homosexuals pray to God for their sexual orientation to be changed and experience no change in their orientation, that the fault lies with them, because they haven't submitted to God.

That’s true though isnt it if one believes the Biblical testimony as well as the testimonies of those who affirm what God can do. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 8:5, “Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.”, also Romans 13:14
“Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
Galatians 5:16 “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
Galatians 5:17 “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.”

The same person has also said that it's impossible to please God if one is a homosexual, and has come (IMO) perilously close to suggesting that being homosexual is incompatible with being Christian.

Again how do you know the motive is hate? An identity in sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is an identity in the flesh not the Spirit. My view would also be that if someone identifies themselves in their sexual orientation as well as in Christ, they haven’t yet really found their identity in Christ, for in Christ there isnt even male and female, therefore to say gay Christian is to elevate ones sexual desires even above one’s physical sex.

Ok you feel the motivation is hatred, but I don’t.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

Again, I ask you and everyone else reading and contributing to this thread - if you were a homosexual man or woman reading some of this material, would you honestly, in your hear of hearts, believe that the people typing some of these messages were doing so in a spirit of love, or out of hatred?

Well possibly hatred, but then that would apply to many other truths of Jesus Christ’s teaching. Jesus said repent or die, I don’t think many people would take kindly to being told that.

Fine. You're happy with the translations and believe they are OK. But do you not understand that it's possible to have differing opinions about various passages that have nothing to do with "disbelief and hatred against God's word"? If anything, it seems to me that trying to be clear about what the Bible means and says, is the opposite of disbelief.

Well yes it is disbelief because If I am happy with the translations I am happy with what the translations say. They include verses for example that say men committing indecent lustful acts with men instead of women is error, a man shall not lei with another man as with a woman, in the beginning God created male and female it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife. All the variations in translation convey the same thing, not the opposite. The differing opinions pro-gay posters have about these passages is they don’t believe they mean what they say and they have nothing that says the contrary.

You're getting cause and effect mixed up here. It's not the texts that I don't like - it's flawed interpretations and translations of those texts.

Sorry but no. Does ‘loves ones neighbour’ mean love ones neighbour’? Is that a correct translation and interpretation? If not what should it say and what does it mean? Do you agree it means what it says?

* That the sin of

Sodom was homosexual sex

* That the writer of Leviticus 18:22 said that homosexuality is an abomination to God
* That in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul was talking about homosexuals..

...then you've made the text say something other than what it says.

No I cant, the NIV translation says homosexual offenders, how can I make the text say something else? If I take the NKJV it says homosexuals and Sodomites.
What you mean is you don’t believe the translation, but 1 Cor 6 says neither adulterers nor sexual immoral (pornos and moichos) to which celibacy Jesus gives the alternative (Matt 19) so your objection to homosexual offenders still has same-sex sex outside God’s purpose.

How do you know they're accurate, though?

Don’t you believe ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ is accurate?

Given that there are people who think they're inaccurate,

Ok either the translation is wrong or they are non believers.

should we just ignore the claims of inaccuracy, or bring them to the table and examine them and use them to help us understand the Bible better?

We can examine them which has been done, alas the passages you wish to have examined are the ones you want examined so same-sex sex is not described as error. Which passages would you therefore like examined to show same sex sex is countenanced? Its called re-writing the Bible to suit ones own desires. Should I like all the passages about wealth re-examined so I can have more wealth and possessions for my own benefit and not be against God’s purposes.?

I think we owe it to ourselves not to let our assumptions get in the way of understanding the texts.

How do we do that then? Surely if we don’t believe the translation we are letting our assumptions get in the way. What do you think disbelief is?

So yes, we should certainly (IMO) be open to the possibility that certain passages of Scripture may contain more subtle nuances and variations of meaning than we may think they mean. Test our assumptions. Test everything. Hold on to that which is good.

So you are prepared to accept that what the Bible says about homosexual offenders could be true?

We're all sinners. I am, you are, every Christian is. Although we repent of our sin when we come to the cross, we nevertheless continue to sin, and repent of that daily.

Ok do you need to repent of same-sex unions?
One cant repent from a sin if one doesn’t think it is wrong.

Our continued propensite for sin doesn't affect our salvation, although I certainly know that we should be striving for holiness in every aspect of our lives.

I would suggest that isnt quite right. My view is that as Jesus has died once and for all on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, we need to repent to receive that of forgiveness. We work out our salvation and as Jesus NT teaching cited in my previous post shows, we need to turn our thoughts to work by the Spirit and not the flesh.

I don't entirely share your beliefs about sexual activity, but then frankly I don't think that other people's sexual activity is either your or my business –

Well again that’s your own view and not according to Jesus Christ NT teaching which says flee sexual immorality and don’t associate with those who live by it 1 Cor 5. I see no mention in the Bible of homosexual orientation but enough against homosexual activity.

God prayerfully. God knows that I don't believe in sex before marriage, and that therefore my fiancée and I have decided to remain chaste until our wedding night. What other people choose to do is up to them.

But is your fiancee of the opposite sex, if not God doesn’t know about your wedding as God made male and female to be together Gen 2, Matt 19. Please show me where God’s word refers to your wedding?

 

[OllieFranz]

Whatever, Being gay is as bad as eating meat offered to idols in front of a brother who is struggling, it doesn't make it anymore right.

If a gay couple were to invite a "weaker brother" (struggling with his gayness and convinced that same-sex affection is sin) over to their house and proceeded to engage in sex in front of him, then yes, it would be the same as Paul's example of eating "tainted" meat in front of a "weaker brother." Are you claiming that that is what is happening?

Talking about "eating meat" and letting it be known that you "eat meat" when there are no "weaker bretheren" around to be a stumbling block are not forbidden, or Paul would have been sinning in writing the relevant passages. (And many of the people you are trying to condemn don't even do that.)

Most of the gay Christians I know do not speak of their sex lives at all. It is only in the sick imagination of rabid homophobes that saying "I'm gay" is the same thing as saying "I am planning on having wild monkey sex in the town square with every man I see, and I'm going to force you to watch."

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

Most of the gay Christians I know do not speak of their sex lives at all

how do you know they are gay then?

 

[David Brider]

Dear Ollifranz,
how do you know they are gay then?

A gay person can tell you they're gay without discussing their sex lives.

Which was rather the point of OllieFranz's post.

David.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

A gay person can tell you they're gay without discussing their sex lives.

Which was rather the point of OllieFranz's post.

David.

I think an interesting question is raised at that statement. Why did they tell me they are gay? As Christians, sexual orientation should not be a defining factor in who we are. I'd find it as odd as someone coming to me and telling me that they are heterosexual. What is the motive behind 'coming out' to someone, so to speak? Are they afraid I may say something offensive if I did not know they were gay? If that's the case, then I'm an offensive person with whom they shouldn't be friends with anyway. What role exactly does sexuality, any sexuality, play in church?

 

[David Brider]

I think an interesting question is raised at that statement. Why did they tell me they are gay? As Christians, sexual orientation should not be a defining factor in who we are.

I'm not suggesting it is, but it's certainly a facet of who we are. Your CF profile lists your interests as pool and cards, your occupation as "Aviation stuff", and that you're married. Those are not defining factors of who you are, but they're facets of who you are, and presumably in discussion with a newcomer to your church or someone else you're meeting for the first time, they'd be things which you'd bring into the conversation to describe your life and your interests. For some people, sexual orientation would figure highly in that - I suspect more so for non-heterosexual people, since it means that they're somewhere off the hetero-normative baseline, and for various reasons it may be relevant in starting a new friendship. But it's largely up to the individual, and the nature of the friendship.

David.