upset by comments

[chalice_thunder]

dp

 

[chalice_thunder]

Yup! But I completely understand how gay men can be attracted to other men. Men are hot. And I don't let my "ick" response make me decide to deny others civil rights.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

Yup! But I completely understand how gay men can be attracted to other men. Men are hot. And I don't let my "ick" response make me decide to deny others civil rights.

yup, I wish more people would just understand that...

what scares me the most though are people who are attracted to people of the opposite orientation XD I have this one friend... and she actually INSTISTS I'm Bi...well she doesnt reallly think that.....but she just likes the idea of me with another male

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is quite fair to compair when you talk about giving into unnatural urges.

Not applicable here.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Okay, first non-gay christian then.

There have been others.

 

[Brennin]

I believe that you need to actually provide evidence that it's "unnatural"

Note the complementary generative organs of males and females. Conclude that males and females are meant to copulate with each other.

Q.E.D.

 

[Texas Lynn]

There is nothing wrong with the term.

It's cruel. That's enough to make it wrong.

 

[Brennin]

It's cruel. That's enough to make it wrong.

I do not consider the term "lifestyle" cruel.

 

[Texas Lynn]

That is a canard:

Oxford Companion to the Bible:

: "Leviticus 20.13 prohibits sexual relations between men, defines
them as an 'abomination,' and places them under the death penalty (see
also Lev. 18.22). Ethical considerations such as consent, coercion, or
the power imbalance inherent in adult-child relations are not legally
relevant in these passages (nor in the surrounding levitical laws on
adultery, incest, and bestiality). Thus, regardless of the sexual
relationship of the participants (a man and his consenting male
partner, an adult male whom he had raped, or a child victim), all are
equally culpable, since all are equally defiled (see Philo, De spec.
leg. 3.7.37-42).

: "Like Leviticus, Paul does not employ the ethical categories of
consent or age for distinguishing between sanctioned and condemned
sexual relations. His letters contain linguistic and conceptual
parallels to the levitical laws about same-sex sexual relations. Thus,
1 Corinthians 6.9-10 states that "the ones who lie with men" (NSRV:
"sodomites"; cf. Lev. 20.13) will not "inherit the kingdom of God"
(see also the Deutero-Pauline 1 Tim. 1.10; and see Ethical Lists).
Paul describes male-male sexual relations as "impurity" and asserts
that such men "deserve to die" (Rom. 1.24-32). Paul extends
prohibition to include sexual relations between women (Rom. 1.26) as
do other postbiblical Jewish writings. Like other writers in the Roman
world such as Philo, Ptolemy, and Martial, Paul sees same-sex sexual
relations as transgressions of hierarchical gender boundaries. For
example, "unnatural" (Rom. 1.26) most likely refers to the women's
attempt to transcend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them by
nature. Similarly, the men have relinquished the superordinate, active
role (see 1 Cor. 11.13) and have descended to the level of women.

: Some postbiblical Jewish and early Christian writers specifically
define the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19.28; cf. Judg. 19) as
same-sex relations rather than as rape or inhospitality; see, for
example, Jude 7 and Philo, De Abrahamo 26.134-36 (cf. 2 Pet. 2.6;
Testament of Naphtali 3.4-5; 4.1).

: Biblical prohibitions of same-sex love directly influenced later
Roman law and, indeed, Western legal statutes until the present (e.g.,
sodomy statutes in the U.S. criminal law). See also Sex.--Bernadette
J. Brooten

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity:

Wright 1

Wright 2

David F Wright, MA, DD

Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture

Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He came to PTS in the Fall of 1994 after a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies].

No unanimity on this among theologians:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

 

[Texas Lynn]

You have no force behind your rebuke.

I have the same as anybody else.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I do not consider the term "lifestyle" cruel.

People toward whom it is directed do.

 

[Brennin]

No unanimity on this among theologians:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

There is among the honest ones. It is manifestly obvious that the Bible condemns homoeroticism.

 

[Brennin]

People toward whom it is directed do.

People who are looking to be offended often are.

 

[Texas Lynn]

People who are looking to be offended often are.

The intent is not uplifting by any measure.

 

[outlaw]

There is among the honest ones. It is manifestly obvious that the Bible condemns homoeroticism.

It is also manifestly obvious (to anyone who is honest) that the bible condones racism…what’s your point?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It is used by hatemongering preachers and the like, often in a singsong voice, to harm, hurt, and denigrate LGBTs. The term "sexual orientation" is generally appropriate.

Put it this way: Paris Hilton has a "lifestyle". I don't. She has millions. I have laundry. The term is used to describe the situations of the rich and famous. From that, it is an effort to dismiss LGBTs as superficial, meaningless people incapable of love by people who hate them. One does not generally speak of the "heterosexual lifestyle" in equivalency.

Well, because it the majority of people have the heterosexual lifestyle, thus it needn't be mentioned as such. Saying that some one has a lifestyle...a way of life...isn't hurt or whatever. Perhaps some folks do use it as such...but I sure don't. Everyone has a lifestyle...so it needn't be offensive unless you make it such.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It all depends. Lust inside of love can be a good thing.

Lust is lust. Lust is different from love. Inside of marriage toward you spouce, perhaps...but outside of marriage...nope.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Umm, what about:

What does the Lord require? Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God.

Or this:

Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and strength. And love your neighbor as yourself. Upon these two commandments hang ALL the law.
I don't see ANY other job descriptions matching the one you put forth.

Yep and also:

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

...to name a few...this is why you read the whole bible, not just parts

 

[MethodMan]

Not applicable here.

Why not?

 

[TooCurious]

Not to sidetrack this thread into another lengthy discussion of linguistics (which I seem to have a habit of doing), but it seems to me that some of the issues in this thread are being exacerbated by the fundamentally imprecise nature of language. The words "lifestyle" and "lust" seem to be the centers of particular contention here. I think a significant part of the problem involving these words comes from their connotations, which create a situation where the people on either side of the debate are almost speaking different languages.

Just so that we're all on the same page, a word's denoted meaning, it's "dictionary definition," often differs from the connotations, or "implied meanings" attached to it. I rambled on in this vein at great length in another thread, which I can find if anyone is especially interested. However, the point is that what I think is happening here is that people on one side of the issue are using the words with one connoted meaning implied, while the people on the other side have entirely different intended connotations, which leads to a lot of talking past one another.

For instance, when some Christians use the word "lust," it seems to me (and please correct me if I don't have this quite right) that they intend the word to mean "a base and degrading purely-physical impulse which ought to be eliminated." However, other people seem to intend the same word to mean "intense desire or attraction, often of a sexual nature." This, I think, is what causes some of the static when a nonbeliever states that "lust in the context of a loving relationship can be a positive thing" (I'm paraphrasing). It makes perfect sense to the speaker, given the implications he is attaching to the word, but to a Christian who understands the word "lust" to have other connotations, the statement doesn't work.

A similar thing, I think, is going on with the word "lifestyle." Some Christians claim (and may sincerely intend) to use the word "lifestyle" to mean, "a habit, practice, or circumstance which characterizes and affects one's daily life." The problem here is that many people understand the word to carry a great deal of linguistic baggage, some of which is offensive to them. A couple of the problematic implications of the word are that a "lifestyle" is chosen voluntarily and as such, a person living a particular lifestyle can simply choose to do otherwise; and that there is something frivolous or trivial about a "lifestyle," which makes it more easily dismissed. The denoted, literal meaning of the word "lifestyle" may be inocuous enough, but it carries enough connotations, many of which have been deliberately exploited by some individuals and groups to belittle and defame homosexuality, that many feel that it is no longer a useful word for polite debate and discussion.

That's probably enough linguistic babble for one post. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.