WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[ReformedChapin]

When you point your finger at other people, there are another three fingers pointing back at you. I love the way that fundagelicals like to accuse others of having an agenda while at the same denying that they have one, don't you?

So what's your agenda then?

Oh I know: to justify your own prejudices.



I see him using the word, I don't see him defining it in the way you want him to. I see him using it in the same way he uses it elsewhere: to talk of people doing things that are against their own inclinations (but not some platonic eternal nature: Paul wasn't a Platonist.) Sorry try again.

The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals. Nice name calling.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals. Nice name calling.

or is to preach what they interpret to be the unbiased Gospel, which apears biased to everyone else?

 

[Athanasian Creed]

or is to preach what they interpret to be the unbiased Gospel, which apears biased to everyone else?

Gee, generalizing just a bit aren't we?!

It's only "biased" to those not lead by the Spirit of God, who live in obedience to the word of God instead of trying to justify their sin by twisting Scripture. To those lead by the Spirit of God, living in obedience, what the word says is CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR. Sodomy is sin - sodomy is why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and Sodomites are, according to God's Apostle Paul, "unrighteous" who will "NOT inherit the Kingdom of God." Nothing unclear about that!

Go ahead, 'enjoy' your sin "for a season" as the Bible declares. Soon enough, there will be "hell to pay." All your excuses will be to no avail on the day of reckoning - "be sure your sins will find you out."

We ALL, Christian and non, have "skeletons in our closets" - question is, do we, with Christ's help and our willingness to change, clean those closets out or allow the skeletons to remain?! YOUR CHOICE!

SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE!!
(though many will call it intolerance, hateful, unChristian and 'homophobic' - just one way to try and drowned out the truth and silence those who would 'dare' speak out against homosexuality. I empathize with you, but not to the point where that empathy becomes acceptance of a lifestyle that is an abomination in the eyes of a holy, just God. To do so would be an affront to God and the teachings of His word.

"Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.00"



Ray

 

[*Starlight*]

It's only "biased" to those not lead by the Spirit of God, who live in obedience to the word of God instead of trying to justify their sin by twisting Scripture.

umm.... did you just call everyone who disagrees with your opinions about the Bible as "not led by the Spirit"? :o

To those lead by the Spirit of God, living in obedience, what the word says is CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR. Sodomy is sin - sodomy is why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and Sodomites are, according to God's Apostle Paul, "unrighteous" who will "NOT inherit the Kingdom of God."

To be honest, I find it quite strange when someone reads a story about a gang rape of angels, and the worst thing he can find there is homosexuality...

 

[Athanasian Creed]

umm.... did you just call everyone who disagrees with your opinions about the Bible as "not led by the Spirit"? :o

Ummm...NO i did not. I said those who do not follow the clear reading of Scripture as "not being led by the Spirit." It's not MY opinions, it what the word of God clearly and plainly teaches.

To be honest, I find it quite strange when someone reads a story about a gang rape of angels, and the worst thing he can find there is homosexuality...

Fortunately it was angels that were the ones the Sodomites were after or else the instance would have been MUCH worse. If they had been men, and God had not intervened providentially, not only would they have been gang-raped but probably murdered as well. FYI, the sin of homosexuality was the reason for what happened, not only in that instance but to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as well. God was so incensed with their blantant sin of homosexuality and flaunting of it that He obliterated it by fire and brimstone!

"Don't pass GO, don't collect $200.00" Obviously, some of you people just don't get it. To those lead by the Spirit of God, it is crystal clear with NO twisting of Scripture nor justification of sin, in this case, the sin of homosexuality!



Ray

 

[artybloke]

The "fungelicals" agenda is to preach the unbiased gospel unlike liberals.

I don't believe you.

 

[MarkEvan]

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

When you point your finger at other people, there are another three fingers pointing back at you. I love the way that fundagelicals like to accuse others of having an agenda while at the same denying that they have one, don't you?

So what's your agenda then?

Oh I know: to justify your own prejudices.

Everything I have said has been backed up by scripture, I have never said "this is what I believe" without refering to scripture, what i have done is said "this is what I believe this scripture to mean, I accept that it is entirely possible for me to be decieved on this issue, having been bought up in a church that has taught that homosexuality is wrong I probably have come at this a little biased. However neither have I ever heard a convincing biblical argument for the defence of homosexuality, when one is produced i will conceed that I am wrong, however up until that argument comes forth I will continue to teach what to me is the obvious meanings of the scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality.

I see him using the word, I don't see him defining it in the way you want him to. I see him using it in the same way he uses it elsewhere: to talk of people doing things that are against their own inclinations (but not some platonic eternal nature: Paul wasn't a Platonist.) Sorry try again.

You`ll have noted the nessesary verses from Romans 1 at the top of my post, paul says that men gave up "natural" relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. While in verse 26 it says women gave up natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, what nature dictates is that a natural relationship is between a man and a women. This is what the words say. There is no mention of, if a homosexual was to give up his natural inclination and go against nature to be consumed with passion for someone of the opposite sex, in the passage, the contrary is stated.

Mark .

 

[artybloke]

Everything I have said has been backed up by scripture, I have never said "this is what I believe" without refering to scripture,

Like every other fundagelical, you seem to think you own the right to interpret the Bible as you see fit and tell everybody else what you think it means. Like every good liberal, I think your interpretation does not accord with the context of ancient Roman culture.

But of course, as every good fundagelical knows, they have more of the Holy Spirit than anyone else (they can buy at the store at discount.)

You`ll have noted the nessesary verses from Romans 1 at the top of my post, paul says that men gave up "natural" relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.

And it still says that people who were normally straight decide to play around.It says nothing of anyone who is born gay or is in a lifelong commited relationship.

 

[ReformedChapin]

or is to preach what they interpret to be the unbiased Gospel, which apears biased to everyone else?

Who is everyone else? LOL

You mean liberals?

 

[ReformedChapin]

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.






Everything I have said has been backed up by scripture, I have never said "this is what I believe" without refering to scripture, what i have done is said "this is what I believe this scripture to mean, I accept that it is entirely possible for me to be decieved on this issue, having been bought up in a church that has taught that homosexuality is wrong I probably have come at this a little biased. However neither have I ever heard a convincing biblical argument for the defence of homosexuality, when one is produced i will conceed that I am wrong, however up until that argument comes forth I will continue to teach what to me is the obvious meanings of the scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality.






You`ll have noted the nessesary verses from Romans 1 at the top of my post, paul says that men gave up "natural" relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. While in verse 26 it says women gave up natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, what nature dictates is that a natural relationship is between a man and a women. This is what the words say. There is no mention of, if a homosexual was to give up his natural inclination and go against nature to be consumed with passion for someone of the opposite sex, in the passage, the contrary is stated.

Mark .

 

[ReformedChapin]

Like every other fundagelical, you seem to think you own the right to interpret the Bible as you see fit and tell everybody else what you think it means. Like every good liberal, I think your interpretation does not accord with the context of ancient Roman culture.

But of course, as every good fundagelical knows, they have more of the Holy Spirit than anyone else (they can buy at the store at discount.)



And it still says that people who were normally straight decide to play around.It says nothing of anyone who is born gay or is in a lifelong commited relationship.

This is the most ironic post I have seen in my life.

All you are arguing is stating that your interpretation is is right and our is wrong. The vast majority of Christians in the world would say you are wrong not only that BUT LIBERALS PUSH THE LIMITS FOR THEIR AGENDAS. Foundementals just want to interpret the true gosple...btw your arguing and fighting only makes you look bad.

And the liberals are far away from proving homosexuality is genetic other than making crappy correlation studies or extremely biased experiments.

 

[JediMobius]

YES!

Faith without reason isn't faith... its just regurgitation of Bible verses.

Christians are supposed to Love God and be like him. How can you love anything if you don't at least TRY to understand it??!!

Faith often stands against reason. Reason is only as wise and good as the collection of human minds who use it. That's a limited wisdom, especially compared to the infinite wisdom of God.

Love without reason is still love. I don't have to understand my mother to love her. I'll never fully understand God in my life on earth, so why should I wait to love Him? The truth is, the more I put my faith and trust in Jesus, the more I begin to understand.

How can one understand the journey while sitting in preparation and study, but never beginning the adventure?

 

[kenrch]

Does not nature itself teach that it is wrong.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Does not nature itself teach that it is wrong.

According to liberals there is gay animals although it violates evolution itself.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

According to liberals there is gay animals although it violate evolution itself.

So THAT'S why my female cats have been actin' awful 'chummy' lately - and i thought it was just the catnip!!

As to evolution, or EVILution, i disagree with that too. God created...ex nihilo...not waiting billions of years for things to appear.

"In the beginning, God created...everything by His Word, speaking them into existence. Man/woman are His special creation, man created by the hand of God from the dust of the earth, woman from the rib of man!

Fundie (and proud of it) i am!


Ray

 

[JediMobius]

Leviticus says the same thing about eating shrimp, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, shaving, handling pigskin, wearing glasses to church and engaging in modern agriculture. Sadly Leviticus has no trouble with either slavery or murdering your disobedient child….so I am not sure using this particular book to prop up prejudice is a good idea.

God never destroyed an entire city for shaving, or eating shrimp. He destroyed a couple for their perverse sexual acts though.

 

[ReformedChapin]

So THAT'S why my female cats have been actin' awful 'chummy' lately - and i thought it was just the catnip!!

As to evolution, or EVILution, i disagree with that too. God created...ex nihilo...not waiting billions of years for things to appear.

"In the beginning, God created...everything by His Word, speaking them into existence. Man/woman are His special creation, man created by the hand of God from the dust of the earth, woman from the rib of man!

Fundie (and proud of it) i am!


Ray

I'm only reffering to it since a lot of liberals claim the science argument.

As to the hermenutcal interpretation of genesis, I'm not sure whether that's a literal statement. All I can say for sure is that genesis states that God made the world, as to his methodology, that's up to him.

 

[JediMobius]

First, he calls it abomination in the OT, and lots of people around here keep banging on about how the New Covenant of Christ washes away much of the OT injunctions.

"Do not suppose that I came to tear down [fig., abolish] the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to tear down _but_ to fulfill.

Jesus said it himself, the new covenant doesn't replace the old, it finishes it. We are still accountable to the law, but since we all sin throughout our lives, God gaves us a way to come back to him through Jesus.

Whoever these 'lots of people' are, I haven't seen any in this thread. . . yet.

 

[JediMobius]

I'm only reffering to it since a lot of liberals claim the science argument.

As to the hermenutcal interpretation of genesis, I'm not sure whether that's a literal statement. All I can say for sure is that genesis states that God made the world, as to his methodology, that's up to him.

Seems to me though, if God had chosen evolution as his method, human would be little more than animals (seems plausible, what with liberal morality lessons from gay squirrels). I'm pretty sure man was made a special creation though, right? Man couldn't then have been made the same as animals.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Seems to me though, if God had chosen evolution as his method, human would be little more than animals (seems plausible, what with liberal morality lessons from gay squirrels). I'm pretty sure man was made a special creation though, right? Man couldn't then have been made the same as animals.

Biologically we have many similarities to animals, to me that doesn't necesserly mean that we evolved but came from the same creator. I haven't taken a side on the evolution contraversy, actually I'm not interested since I don't think it's an essential Christian doctrine.